Another victory for government secrecy in Connecticut?

The CT Mirror headline reads; Fate of legislature’s investigative arm hangs on budget battle.

As background, in 1992 I served as the House Chairman of the Connecticut General Assembly Program Review and Investigation Committee.  In many respects it is one of the most important committees in the legislative branch of government.  The bi-partisan committee and its professional staff are tasked with providing the legislature with the ability to review and investigate administrative agencies, programs and policies and the committee serves as a unique mechanism to counter the power of the Governor and his control over all state activities.

But as a result of their disastrous budget agreement, Malloy and Democratic leaders took a major step toward undermining, even destroying, this important vehicle of transparency.

As the CT Mirror explains;

The fate of the legislature’s chief investigative arm probably will be determined in the next few weeks as top leaders decide whether to impose a cut that would chop the nonpartisan agency in half.

Meanwhile, the House’s longest-serving current member, Rep. Mary Mushinsky, D-Wallingford, insists House Speaker J. Brendan Sharkey’s office assured her the planned reduction to the Program Review and Investigation Committee staff would be significantly muted — in exchange for her support for the new state budget.

But the speaker, who is retiring after this year, said last week his office never made that pledge. And while he said he would try, nonetheless, to ease the fiscal pain, it is doubtful that several of the 12 positions in the investigative office won’t be eliminated.

In the short term, undermining the Program Review and Investigation Committee would derail important legislative reviews including studies into the State’s school desegregation programs; long-term care services; substance abuse prevention services and the state’s handling of discrimination complaints.

But the far more serious issue is that by decimating the Program Review Committee’s staffing and mission, the legislature would be taking another giant leap backwards in its duty to monitor and investigate the actions of the administrative branch of government.

But less executive branch oversight and less independence for the state’s clean government agencies appears to be one of Governor Dannel Malloy’s prime objectives. Unfortunately Democratic leaders have done little to subdue Malloy’s unprecedented attack on open and honest government.

As for the Program Review and Investigations Committee, according to the CT Mirror’s latest coverage,

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the legislature struggled to eliminate a nearly $1 billion hole in the 2016-17 fiscal year without raising taxes. And the $19.76 billion budget they enacted funds most departments and agencies below the level originally promised for that fiscal year.

When Sharkey and Looney announced a tentative budget agreement with the Malloy administration during the waning hours of the regular legislative session in early May, one of the cuts they announced was $750,000 to be achieved by eliminating half of the program review office’s 12 jobs.

Both Sharkey and Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said they highly value program review’s work.

But they also felt the legislative branch’s portion of the budget — albeit a small one — should sacrifice in the same way the rest of state government was.

However, rather than cut out more of the top heavy political operation within the House and Senate Democratic and Republican caucuses, the legislative leaders, apparently with Republican leadership support, are seeking to preserve the money spent of guaranteeing the power of incumbency and achieving the savings incorporated in the new state budget by going after the Program Review and Investigations Committee.

You can read the complete CT Mirror article at: http://ctmirror.org/2016/07/11/fate-of-legislatures-investigative-arm-hangs-on-budget-battle/

They stole the fricking school bus seat belt money again!

Hidden deep inside the new state budget bill negotiated by Governor Dannel Malloy and Democratic legislative leaders, and approved last month by the Democrats in the General Assembly, was a provision that, once again, transferred the money that had been set aside to help school districts retrofit school buses with seat belts into the general fund.

As Wait, What? readers know, this is not the first time Governor Malloy and the Democrats have stolen the School Bus Seatbelt Account in order to make the state budget balance.

Since taking office, Malloy has reached into the special school seat belt fund four times, grabbing close to $10 million dollars.

Rather than use the funds for their intended use – to protect our children – Malloy and the Democrats simply grabbed the money to plug holes in the state budget.

This time, rather than adopt a fair and honest budget, the Democrats added Section 28 to Senate Bill 501 which “transferred” $2 million from the School Bus Seatbelt Account to the General Fund.  The legislature also swept $2 million from the Seat Belt fund to address a small part of the $250 million Fiscal Year 2016 budget deficit.

Previous Wait, What articles on this issue can be found via the following links:

The Train Wreck of the Democrats’ State Budget. [Or for long-time Wait, What? readers file under – Not the Fricking School Bus Seat Belts again!] (6/3/2015)

School Bus Seat Belt Fund: A prime example of Connecticut’s budget gimmickry (1/14/2014)

Remember when school bus seatbelts were a big priority? (12/20/2012)

The School Bus Seat Belt Account was created following the tragic January 2010 school bus accident on Route 84 in Hartford that killed a Rocky Hill student who was attending one of the CREC magnet schools.  Following the accident, the Connecticut legislature kicked into action, passing Public Act 10-83.

The law created the Connecticut School Bus Seat Belt Account, “a separate non-lapsing account in the General Fund” and required that the funds be used to help school districts pay for the cost of equipping school buses with lap/shoulder (3-point) seat belts.

To pay for the program, the Legislature increased the cost associated with restoring a suspended driver’s license from $125 to $ 175, using the extra $50 per person to create a funding stream for the important program.

Now six years later, no school bus seat belts have been installed, thanks to the fact that Connecticut’s governor and legislature have stolen nearly $10 million from the fund.

When these elected officials come looking for support, ask them why they didn’t do more to stop this outrage.

2016 – CT legislators sided with Malloy rather than teachers and students on unfair teacher evaluation program (Re-Post)

Re-posting – Did your CT legislators support students, parents and teachers or Malloy and the Common Core testing mania?

Earlier this month, the Connecticut General Assembly adjourned without even voting on one of the most important pieces of legislation being considered.  It was called Senate Bill 380 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXCLUSION OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE RESULTS ON THE MASTERY EXAMINATION FROM TEACHER EVALUATIONS.

Opposed by Governor Dannel Malloy, charter school advocates and the corporate education reform industry, the bill would have required the state to fix its flawed teacher evaluation law and reduce the state’s obsession with Malloy’s massive standardized testing scheme.

Instead of keeping the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) as part of the state’s flawed teacher evaluation program, the proposed law would have required Connecticut to adopt a system that is based on the real factors that determine whether a teacher is successfully doing their job in the classroom.

But Malloy and his allies, including the two major charter school lobby groups, ConnCAN and CCER, demanded that legislators defeat the bill and keep the existing shameful system in place.

Doing Malloy’s bidding, rather than what was right for Connecticut’s children, parents, teachers and public schools, the Democratic leaders of the Connecticut State Senate and Connecticut House of Representatives refused to even bring this important bill up for a vote, thereby killing the legislation.

Malloy and the corporate lobby group’s reach was even evident when the bill was voted on by the Education Committee.

A handful of legislators actually sided with Malloy and the big money charter school lobbyists to VOTE AGAINST the own constituents!

Legislators voting against Connecticut’s students, teachers and public schools included Democratic State Representatives;

Juan Candelaria (New Haven)
Jeff Curry (East Hartford, Manchester, South Windsor)
Henry Genga (East Hartford)
Doug McCrory (Bloomfield)
Brandon McGee (Windsor)
Patricia Miller (Stamford) and
Jason Roja (East Hartford, Manchester)

There were few recorded votes this year that provided citizens with such a stark contrast between right and wrong.

Given the opportunity to ensure that Connecticut reduced Malloy’s fixation with the Common Core testing scam and that it adopted a fair and appropriate teacher evaluation system, these legislators picked Malloy and the charter school industry over their constituents.

Remember this issue when voting in November 2016

The following chart indicates how legislators on the Education Committee voted and who co-sponsored this important piece of legislation.

What is missing is an explanation from Democratic legislators as to why they allowed their leadership to prevent the bill from even coming up for a vote.

Connecticut citizens deserved much better!

Now voters can use the 2016 elections to make sure Connecticut gets better elected officials

 

STATE SENATOR District  Party  Education Committee Co-Sponsor Status
Bartolomeo, Danté S13 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Boucher, Toni S26 R VOTED YES  
Bye, Beth S05 D VOTED YES  
Cassano, Steve S04 D    
Chapin, Clark J. S30 R    
Coleman, Eric D. S02 D   CO-SPONSOR
Crisco, Joseph J. S17 D    
Doyle, Paul R. S09 D    
Duff, Bob S25 D    
Fasano, Leonard A. S34 R   CO-SPONSOR
Flexer, Mae S29 D   CO-SPONSOR
Fonfara, John W. S01 D    
Formica, Paul M. S20 R    
Frantz, L. Scott S36 R    
Gerratana, Terry B. S06 D   CO-SPONSOR
Gomes, Edwin A. S23 D   CO-SPONSOR
Guglielmo, Anthony S35 R   CO-SPONSOR
Hartley, Joan V. S15 D    
Hwang, Tony S28 R    
Kane, Robert J. S32 R    
Kelly, Kevin C. S21 R    
Kennedy, Ted S12 D    
Kissel, John A. S07 R    
Larson, Timothy D. S03 D    
Leone, Carlo S27 D    
Linares, Art S33 R VOTED NO  
Looney, Martin M. S11 D    
Markley, Joe S16 R    
Martin, Henri S31 R    
Maynard, Andrew M. S18 D    
McLachlan, Michael A. S24 R    
Moore, Marilyn S22 D   CO-SPONSOR
Osten, Catherine A. S19 D    
Slossberg, Gayle S. S14 D VOTED YES  
Winfield, Gary A. S10 D VOTED YES  
Witkos, Kevin D. S08 R   CO-SPONSOR

 

 

STATE REPRESENTATIVE District  Party  Education Committee Co-sponsor Status
Abercrombie, Catherine F. 83 D   CO-SPONSOR
Ackert, Tim 8 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Adams, Terry B. 146 D   CO-SPONSOR
Adinolfi, Al 103 R    
Alberts, Mike 50 R    
Albis, James 99 D   CO-SPONSOR
Alexander, David 58 D   CO-SPONSOR
Altobello, Emil 82 D    
Aman, William 14 R    
Arce, Angel 4 D    
Arconti, David 109 D   CO-SPONSOR
Aresimowicz, Joe 30 D    
Baker, Andre F. 124 D VOTED YES  
Baram, David A. 15 D   CO-SPONSOR
Becker, Brian 19 D    
Belsito, Sam 53 R VOTED YES  
Berger, Jeffrey J. 73 D    
Berthel, Eric C. 68 R VOTED NO CO-SPONSOR
Betts, Whit 78 R    
Bocchino, Mike 150 R   CO-SPONSOR
Bolinsky, Mitch 106 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Boukus, Elizabeth A. 22 D    
Brycki, Paul 45 D    
Buck-Taylor, Cecilia 67 R    
Bumgardner, Aundré 41 R VOTED YES  
Butler, Larry B. 72 D   CO-SPONSOR
Byron, Gary 27 R    
Camillo, Fred 151 R   CO-SPONSOR
Candelaria, Juan R. 95 D VOTED NO  
Candelora, Vincent J. 86 R    
Carney, Devin R. 23 R   CO-SPONSOR
Carpino, Christie M. 32 R    
Carter, Dan 2 R VOTED YES  
Case, Jay M. 63 R    
Conroy, Theresa W. 105 D   CO-SPONSOR
Cook, Michelle L. 65 D    
Currey, Jeff 11 D VOTED NO  
D’Agostino, Michael 91 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
D’Amelio, Anthony J. 71 R    
Dargan, Stephen D. 115 D    
Davis, Christopher 57 R    
Demicco, Mike 21 D    
Devlin, Laura 134 R    
Dillon, Patricia A. 92 D    
Dubitsky, Doug 47 R    
Esposito, Louis P. 116 D    
Ferraro, Charles J. 117 R    
Fleischmann, Andrew 18 D VOTED YES  
Floren, Livvy R. 149 R    
Fox, Daniel J. 148 D    
France, Mike 42 R    
Frey, John H. 111 R   CO-SPONSOR
Fritz, Mary G. 90 D    
Genga, Henry J. 10 D VOTED NO  
Gentile, Linda M. 104 D    
Giegler, Janice R. 138 R    
Godfrey, Bob 110 D   CO-SPONSOR
Gonzalez, Minnie 3 D    
Gresko, Joseph P. 121 D   CO-SPONSOR
Guerrera, Antonio 29 D    
Haddad, Gregory 54 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hampton, John K. 16 D   CO-SPONSOR
Harding, Stephen G. 107 R    
Hennessy, John “Jack” F. 127 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hewett, Ernest 39 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hoydick, Laura R. 120 R    
Janowski, Claire L. 56 D   CO-SPONSOR
Johnson, Susan M. 49 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Jutila, Ed 37 D    
Kiner, David W. 59 D   CO-SPONSOR
Klarides, Themis 114 R    
Kokoruda, Noreen S. 101 R VOTED YES  
Kupchick, Brenda L. 132 R    
Labriola, David K. 131 R    
Lavielle, Gail 143 R VOTED YES  
LeGeyt, Timothy B. 17 R VOTED YES  
Lemar, Roland J. 96 D VOTED YES  
Lesser, Matthew 100 D   CO-SPONSOR
Lopes, Rick 24 D   CO-SPONSOR
Luxenberg, Kelly J.S. 12 D    
MacLachlan, Jesse 35 R    
McCarthy Vahey, Cristin 133 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
McCarty, Kathleen M. 38 R VOTED NO  
McCrory, Douglas 7 D VOTED NO  
McGee, Brandon L. 5 D VOTED NO  
McGorty, Ben 122 R    
Megna, Robert W. 97 D   CO-SPONSOR
Miller, Patricia Billie 145 D VOTED NO  
Miller, Philip J. 36 D    
Miner, Craig A. 66 R   CO-SPONSOR
Morin, Russell A. 28 D   CO-SPONSOR
Morris, Bruce V. 140 D    
Mulligan, Gayle J. 55 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Mushinsky, Mary M. 85 D    
Nicastro, Frank N. 79 D    
Noujaim, Selim G. 74 R   CO-SPONSOR
O’Dea, Tom 125 R    
O’Neill, Arthur J. 69 R    
Orange, Linda A. 48 D   CO-SPONSOR
Pavalock, Cara Christine 77 R    
Perillo, Jason 113 R    
Perone, Chris 137 D    
Piscopo, John E. 76 R    
Porter, Robyn A. 94 D    
Randall, Christine 44 D   CO-SPONSOR
Rebimbas, Rosa C. 70 R    
Reed, Lonnie 102 D    
Reyes, Geraldo C. 75 D    
Riley, Emmett D. 46 D   CO-SPONSOR
Ritter, Matthew 1 D    
Rojas, Jason 9 D VOTED NO  
Rosario, Christopher 128 D    
Rose, Kim 118 D   CO-SPONSOR
Rovero, Daniel S. 51 D    
Rutigliano, David 123 R    
Ryan, Kevin 139 D    
Sampson, Robert C. 80 R    
Sanchez, Robert 25 D VOTED YES  
Santiago, Ezequiel 130 D    
Santiago, Hilda E. 84 D   CO-SPONSOR
Sayers, Peggy 60 D    
Scanlon, Sean 98 D    
Scott, John F. 40 R    
Serra, Joseph C. 33 D    
Shaban, John T. 135 R    
Sharkey, J. Brendan 88 D    
Simanski, Bill 62 R    
Simmons, Caroline 144 D    
Smith, Richard A. 108 R    
Sredzinski, J.P. 112 R    
Srinivasan, Prasad 31 R    
Stafstrom, Steven 129 D    
Stallworth, Charlie L. 126 D    
Staneski, Pam 119 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Steinberg, Jonathan 136 D    
Tercyak, Peter A. 26 D   CO-SPONSOR
Tong, William 147 D    
Tweedie, Mark 13 R   CO-SPONSOR
Urban, Diana S. 43 D   CO-SPONSOR
Vail, Kurt 52 R    
Vargas, Edwin 6 D   CO-SPONSOR
Verrengia, Joe 20 D   CO-SPONSOR
Walker, Toni E. 93 D   CO-SPONSOR
Willis, Roberta B. 64 D   CO-SPONSOR
Wilms, Fred 142 R    
Wood, Terrie 141 R    
Yaccarino, Dave W. 87 R   CO-SPONSOR
Zawistowski, Tami 61 R    
Ziobron, Melissa H. 34 R    
Zoni, David 81 D   CO-SPONSOR
Zupkus, Lezlye 89 R    

 

Did your CT legislators support students, parents and teachers or Malloy and the Common Core testing mania?

Earlier this month, the Connecticut General Assembly adjourned without even voting on one of the most important pieces of legislation being considered.  It was called Senate Bill 380 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXCLUSION OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE RESULTS ON THE MASTERY EXAMINATION FROM TEACHER EVALUATIONS.

Opposed by Governor Dannel Malloy, charter school advocates and the corporate education reform industry, the bill would have required the state to fix its flawed teacher evaluation law and reduce the state’s obsession with Malloy’s massive standardized testing scheme.

Instead of keeping the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) as part of the state’s flawed teacher evaluation program, the proposed law would have required Connecticut to adopt a system that is based on the real factors that determine whether a teacher is successfully doing their job in the classroom.

But Malloy and his allies, including the two major charter school lobby groups, ConnCAN and CCER, demanded that legislators defeat the bill and keep the existing shameful system in place.

Doing Malloy’s bidding, rather than what was right for Connecticut’s children, parents, teachers and public schools, the Democratic leaders of the Connecticut State Senate and Connecticut House of Representatives refused to even bring this important bill up for a vote, thereby killing the legislation.

Malloy and the corporate lobby group’s reach was even evident when the bill was voted on by the Education Committee.

A handful of legislators actually sided with Malloy and the big money charter school lobbyists to VOTE AGAINST the own constituents!

Legislators voting against Connecticut’s students, teachers and public schools included Democratic State Representatives;

Juan Candelaria (New Haven),

Jeff Curry (East Hartford, Manchester, South Windsor),
Henry Genga (East Hartford),
Doug McCrory (Bloomfield),
Brandon McGee (Windsor)
Patricia Miller (Stamford) and
Jason Roja (East Hartford, Manchester)

There were few recorded votes this year that provided citizens with such a stark contrast between right and wrong.

Given the opportunity to ensure that Connecticut reduced Malloy’s fixation with the Common Core testing scam and that it adopted a fair and appropriate teacher evaluation system, these legislators picked Malloy and the charter school industry over their constituents.

Remember this issue when voting in November 2016

The following chart indicates how legislators on the Education Committee voted and who co-sponsored this important piece of legislation.

What is missing is an explanation from Democratic legislators as to why they allowed their leadership to prevent the bill from even coming up for a vote.

Connecticut citizens deserved much better!

 

STATE SENATOR District  Party  Education Committee Co-Sponsor Status
Bartolomeo, Danté S13 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Boucher, Toni S26 R VOTED YES  
Bye, Beth S05 D VOTED YES  
Cassano, Steve S04 D    
Chapin, Clark J. S30 R    
Coleman, Eric D. S02 D   CO-SPONSOR
Crisco, Joseph J. S17 D    
Doyle, Paul R. S09 D    
Duff, Bob S25 D    
Fasano, Leonard A. S34 R   CO-SPONSOR
Flexer, Mae S29 D   CO-SPONSOR
Fonfara, John W. S01 D    
Formica, Paul M. S20 R    
Frantz, L. Scott S36 R    
Gerratana, Terry B. S06 D   CO-SPONSOR
Gomes, Edwin A. S23 D   CO-SPONSOR
Guglielmo, Anthony S35 R   CO-SPONSOR
Hartley, Joan V. S15 D    
Hwang, Tony S28 R    
Kane, Robert J. S32 R    
Kelly, Kevin C. S21 R    
Kennedy, Ted S12 D    
Kissel, John A. S07 R    
Larson, Timothy D. S03 D    
Leone, Carlo S27 D    
Linares, Art S33 R VOTED NO  
Looney, Martin M. S11 D    
Markley, Joe S16 R    
Martin, Henri S31 R    
Maynard, Andrew M. S18 D    
McLachlan, Michael A. S24 R    
Moore, Marilyn S22 D   CO-SPONSOR
Osten, Catherine A. S19 D    
Slossberg, Gayle S. S14 D VOTED YES  
Winfield, Gary A. S10 D VOTED YES  
Witkos, Kevin D. S08 R   CO-SPONSOR

 

 

STATE REPRESENTATIVE District  Party  Education Committee Co-sponsor Status
Abercrombie, Catherine F. 83 D   CO-SPONSOR
Ackert, Tim 8 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Adams, Terry B. 146 D   CO-SPONSOR
Adinolfi, Al 103 R    
Alberts, Mike 50 R    
Albis, James 99 D   CO-SPONSOR
Alexander, David 58 D   CO-SPONSOR
Altobello, Emil 82 D    
Aman, William 14 R    
Arce, Angel 4 D    
Arconti, David 109 D   CO-SPONSOR
Aresimowicz, Joe 30 D    
Baker, Andre F. 124 D VOTED YES  
Baram, David A. 15 D   CO-SPONSOR
Becker, Brian 19 D    
Belsito, Sam 53 R VOTED YES  
Berger, Jeffrey J. 73 D    
Berthel, Eric C. 68 R VOTED NO CO-SPONSOR
Betts, Whit 78 R    
Bocchino, Mike 150 R   CO-SPONSOR
Bolinsky, Mitch 106 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Boukus, Elizabeth A. 22 D    
Brycki, Paul 45 D    
Buck-Taylor, Cecilia 67 R    
Bumgardner, Aundré 41 R VOTED YES  
Butler, Larry B. 72 D   CO-SPONSOR
Byron, Gary 27 R    
Camillo, Fred 151 R   CO-SPONSOR
Candelaria, Juan R. 95 D VOTED NO  
Candelora, Vincent J. 86 R    
Carney, Devin R. 23 R   CO-SPONSOR
Carpino, Christie M. 32 R    
Carter, Dan 2 R VOTED YES  
Case, Jay M. 63 R    
Conroy, Theresa W. 105 D   CO-SPONSOR
Cook, Michelle L. 65 D    
Currey, Jeff 11 D VOTED NO  
D’Agostino, Michael 91 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
D’Amelio, Anthony J. 71 R    
Dargan, Stephen D. 115 D    
Davis, Christopher 57 R    
Demicco, Mike 21 D    
Devlin, Laura 134 R    
Dillon, Patricia A. 92 D    
Dubitsky, Doug 47 R    
Esposito, Louis P. 116 D    
Ferraro, Charles J. 117 R    
Fleischmann, Andrew 18 D VOTED YES  
Floren, Livvy R. 149 R    
Fox, Daniel J. 148 D    
France, Mike 42 R    
Frey, John H. 111 R   CO-SPONSOR
Fritz, Mary G. 90 D    
Genga, Henry J. 10 D VOTED NO  
Gentile, Linda M. 104 D    
Giegler, Janice R. 138 R    
Godfrey, Bob 110 D   CO-SPONSOR
Gonzalez, Minnie 3 D    
Gresko, Joseph P. 121 D   CO-SPONSOR
Guerrera, Antonio 29 D    
Haddad, Gregory 54 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hampton, John K. 16 D   CO-SPONSOR
Harding, Stephen G. 107 R    
Hennessy, John “Jack” F. 127 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hewett, Ernest 39 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hoydick, Laura R. 120 R    
Janowski, Claire L. 56 D   CO-SPONSOR
Johnson, Susan M. 49 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Jutila, Ed 37 D    
Kiner, David W. 59 D   CO-SPONSOR
Klarides, Themis 114 R    
Kokoruda, Noreen S. 101 R VOTED YES  
Kupchick, Brenda L. 132 R    
Labriola, David K. 131 R    
Lavielle, Gail 143 R VOTED YES  
LeGeyt, Timothy B. 17 R VOTED YES  
Lemar, Roland J. 96 D VOTED YES  
Lesser, Matthew 100 D   CO-SPONSOR
Lopes, Rick 24 D   CO-SPONSOR
Luxenberg, Kelly J.S. 12 D    
MacLachlan, Jesse 35 R    
McCarthy Vahey, Cristin 133 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
McCarty, Kathleen M. 38 R VOTED NO  
McCrory, Douglas 7 D VOTED NO  
McGee, Brandon L. 5 D VOTED NO  
McGorty, Ben 122 R    
Megna, Robert W. 97 D   CO-SPONSOR
Miller, Patricia Billie 145 D VOTED NO  
Miller, Philip J. 36 D    
Miner, Craig A. 66 R   CO-SPONSOR
Morin, Russell A. 28 D   CO-SPONSOR
Morris, Bruce V. 140 D    
Mulligan, Gayle J. 55 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Mushinsky, Mary M. 85 D    
Nicastro, Frank N. 79 D    
Noujaim, Selim G. 74 R   CO-SPONSOR
O’Dea, Tom 125 R    
O’Neill, Arthur J. 69 R    
Orange, Linda A. 48 D   CO-SPONSOR
Pavalock, Cara Christine 77 R    
Perillo, Jason 113 R    
Perone, Chris 137 D    
Piscopo, John E. 76 R    
Porter, Robyn A. 94 D    
Randall, Christine 44 D   CO-SPONSOR
Rebimbas, Rosa C. 70 R    
Reed, Lonnie 102 D    
Reyes, Geraldo C. 75 D    
Riley, Emmett D. 46 D   CO-SPONSOR
Ritter, Matthew 1 D    
Rojas, Jason 9 D VOTED NO  
Rosario, Christopher 128 D    
Rose, Kim 118 D   CO-SPONSOR
Rovero, Daniel S. 51 D    
Rutigliano, David 123 R    
Ryan, Kevin 139 D    
Sampson, Robert C. 80 R    
Sanchez, Robert 25 D VOTED YES  
Santiago, Ezequiel 130 D    
Santiago, Hilda E. 84 D   CO-SPONSOR
Sayers, Peggy 60 D    
Scanlon, Sean 98 D    
Scott, John F. 40 R    
Serra, Joseph C. 33 D    
Shaban, John T. 135 R    
Sharkey, J. Brendan 88 D    
Simanski, Bill 62 R    
Simmons, Caroline 144 D    
Smith, Richard A. 108 R    
Sredzinski, J.P. 112 R    
Srinivasan, Prasad 31 R    
Stafstrom, Steven 129 D    
Stallworth, Charlie L. 126 D    
Staneski, Pam 119 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Steinberg, Jonathan 136 D    
Tercyak, Peter A. 26 D   CO-SPONSOR
Tong, William 147 D    
Tweedie, Mark 13 R   CO-SPONSOR
Urban, Diana S. 43 D   CO-SPONSOR
Vail, Kurt 52 R    
Vargas, Edwin 6 D   CO-SPONSOR
Verrengia, Joe 20 D   CO-SPONSOR
Walker, Toni E. 93 D   CO-SPONSOR
Willis, Roberta B. 64 D   CO-SPONSOR
Wilms, Fred 142 R    
Wood, Terrie 141 R    
Yaccarino, Dave W. 87 R   CO-SPONSOR
Zawistowski, Tami 61 R    
Ziobron, Melissa H. 34 R    
Zoni, David 81 D   CO-SPONSOR
Zupkus, Lezlye 89 R  

Any CT legislator who votes for the proposed State Budget deserves to lose in November

There are times when an elected official is faced with a choice between doing what is right and doing what is politically expedient in an effort to get along to go along.  The vote on the proposed state budget agreement between Governor Dannel Malloy and the Democratic leadership of the General Assembly is just such a vote.

Their proposed budget is a fiscally irresponsible and mean-spirited farce.

It is a budget that relies on record cuts to vital services and public education and unfairly dumps Connecticut’s fiscal programs on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens and our children.

The proposed budget coddles the rich and claims to limit tax increases, yet will force cities and towns across Connecticut to raise local property taxes on the state’s middle class.

And for what it is worth, the proposed budget does not even balance.

After using one-time revenue, diverting public funds from their intended purposes, borrowing to pay operating costs, and laying off thousands of public employees, this sham of a budget will be out of balance by at least $100 million dollars the day it is signed into law.

Not to mention the damage this budget will do our local public schools and to the people who need and deserve the health and human services that allow them to live more productive and fulfilling lives.

Governor Dannel Malloy is wrong when he says it is a good budget and he is lying when he says it is fiscally responsible.

The Democratic leaders of the Connecticut General Assembly who negotiated this terrible “compromise” plan are wrong when they say it is a good budget and they are lying when they say it is fiscally responsible.

And the business executives who are lobbying Connecticut legislators to vote yes on this disastrous plan are throwing the state’s citizens, including our small business owners who generate the vast majority of jobs, under the bus.

Instead of patting themselves on the back, Connecticut’s elected officials should be throwing out  this piece of crap budget and get to work putting together a budget that is fair, honest and fiscally responsible.

Any legislator who votes for the Malloy/Democratic Leadership plan should be defeated in this November’s election and replaced with someone who is capable of standing up and doing the right thing for the people of Connecticut.

A possible solution for Connecticut’s budget crisis – “Throw the bums out…”

Watching a horrible car crash take place would be less traumatic than witnessing Governor Dannel Malloy and the Connecticut General Assembly careen toward their constitutionally mandated deadline of midnight tonight (May, 4, 2016.)

While a Special Session of the Connecticut Legislature will undoubtedly be needed to “clean up” a state budget plan that was developed behind closed doors and remains a mystery to the people of Connecticut, and most of the legislators who will be voting for or against it in the coming hours, the sad reality is that most of the Democratic members of the Connecticut State Senate and State House of Representatives appear to be willing to vote for a state spending plan that continues to coddle the rich while instituting unprecedented cuts to vital human services, Connecticut public schools and other critically important programs.

As Connecticut’s media outlets report, details about the budget are “scarce.”

In fact, it would be impossible for most legislators to have a real understanding of how the Democrat’s “compromise” budget will impact the state, their districts or the people they have sworn to represent.

The media headlines paint a disturbing picture of the mismanagement that continues to mark Dannel Malloy’s time in office.…

Democrats, governor strike budget deal, aim for Wednesday vote (CT Mirror)

Dems Get A Budget Deal, But Republicans Have To Let Them Pass It (CT Newsjunkie)

Malloy, Legislative Leaders Reach Deal On Deep Cuts, No Tax Increases (Hartford Courant)

A true snapshot of the problem becomes evident as the CT Mirror reports;

Democratic legislators ended a tense day of negotiations with the governor Tuesday by announcing a deal on a new state budget that the General Assembly will race to adopt Wednesday before the constitutional adjournment deadline of midnight.

Passage will require the cooperation of the Republican minority, an uncertain prospect after House Speaker J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, and Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, exchanged insults outside the Capitol pressroom.

Sharkey and Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, largely glossed over the spending cuts necessary to balance the budget, focusing instead on positive aspects: No tax increases, more money for transportation funding and revenue-sharing with towns, albeit at lesser amounts than originally planned. It also avoids tapping Connecticut’s emergency reserve.

[…]

The leaders said the package would close a nearly $1 billion gap in the fiscal year that begins July 1, but the line-by-line details would not be available until Wednesday.

The plan imposes deep cuts on salary accounts in most state departments and commissions that probably would require Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to reduce the state workforce beyond the nearly 2,600 jobs his administration is striving to eliminate through layoffs, retirements and attrition.

[…]

Though full details weren’t available, Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, co-chair of the Appropriations Committee, confirmed that this budget — similar to proposals from Malloy and from GOP legislators — probably reduces funding for agency and departmental salary accounts by hundreds of millions of dollars.

These cuts probably require more personnel savings than Malloy will be able to achieve through workforce reduction efforts currently underway.

The administration began serving layoff notices last month, and the governor said he expects about 1,900 to 2,000 workers will have received pink slips by mid-June.

The administration also expects to eliminate roughly 600 more jobs through retirements and attrition.

Bye said the budget also “sends signals” to state employee unions about another key area in which legislators hope to curb spending in the future: health care and retirement benefits.

As Malloy and legislative leaders prepare to jam through a vote on a new state budget, the bottom line appears to be that the Democrats intend to adopt a spending plan that is based on;

Deep cuts to vital services

An unprecedented attack on state employees

No effort to require the wealthy to pay their fair share

And a state budget that continues to rely on the use of one-time revenues and budget gimmicks.

The real question today is not so much whether the Republicans will allow the Democrats to pass a budget, but whether the voters will continue to put up with elected officials who are unwilling or unable to properly deal with the financial and policy challenges that face Connecticut.

To drive that point home, when asked about the rush to vote, Republican Senate Leader Len Fasano responded with what may very well be the quote of the year.  Fasano explained;

“Maybe they feel threatened by us. I don’t know. And I understand why they feel threatened.  They have screwed up this state so badly, I understand they are very nervous about November. I get that.”

But alas, what makes the entire situation even worse of the people of the Constitution State is that the Republicans have done just as bad a job when it comes to articulating a reasonable alternative to the Democrat’s crash and burn approach to governance.

Thus the best solution may be for the voters of the state to simply throw them all out and start anew.

Legislators – Make Malloy veto the only fair, honest and effective way to balance the State Budget.

After ordering massive budget cuts to a variety of programs that provide critically needed support for some of Connecticut’s most vulnerable citizens and making record breaking cuts to Connecticut’s public schools and colleges, this year’s Connecticut State Budget is still $220 million in deficit.

Although Governor Dannel Malloy claimed that the State Budget he signed into law last summer was balanced and that he had succeeded in putting Connecticut’s fiscal house in order, in truth, that budget missed the mark by nearly $1 billion dollars.

Over the last few month Malloy and the Connecticut General Assembly have instituted deep and sweeping cuts that undermine some of Connecticut’s most vital social, health and education programs and services.

To make matters worse, Malloy is now withholding funds that Connecticut’s hospitals and non-profit providers of community services need to ensure that hundreds of thousands of Connecticut residents get the essential services they need.

With things getting worse by the day, Democratic leaders in the Connecticut legislature are now saying that they are poised to make even deeper cuts to programs as they flail around in an effort to balance the budget.

See:  Legislative Leaders, Malloy Continue Negotiations Over 2016 Budget Deficit (CT Newsjunkie), Senate Democratic leaders confident deficit-mitigation cuts will pass (CT Mirror), Legislature To Vote Tuesday In Attempt To Close Budget Deficit (Courant)

But there is a simple, honest and effective way for legislators to balance this year’s state budget and it is a solution that will allow them to restore some of the funding for the most important state programs and services.

However, Governor Malloy doesn’t like the idea so Democratic legislators are simply pretending that the best solution for the people of Connecticut doesn’t even exist.

It is time for Connecticut legislators to dismiss Malloy’s bullying.  He is a governor, not a king!  Their duty is to their constituents, not to the power hungry governor.

The best, most honest and most effective solution is for the members of the Connecticut State Senate and State House of Representatives to do the right thing and pass a budget deficit mitigation package that requires the super wealthy to pay their fair share.

If Governor Malloy’s decides that his priority is to coddle the rich while the rest of Connecticut suffers, let him veto the bill and face the political consequences.

The solution is extremely simple.

As the non-partisan research group Connecticut Voices for Children have reported;

  • Connecticut’s poor families pay about 12.5 percent of their income in state and local taxes
  • Connecticut’s middle income families pay about 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes
  • And Connecticut’s wealthiest residents pay about 5.5 percent of their income in state and local taxes.

As a direct result of Governor Malloy’s ongoing effort to protect the rich, Connecticut’s wealthy pay FAR less than they would if they lived in Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey..

The harsh, but unspoken, reality is that Connecticut’s middle class and working families are subsidizing Connecticut’s wealthy.

It is a policy that is unfair and needs to stop.

Connecticut’s public officials can eliminate the budget deficit by simply making Connecticut’s tax system fairer.

Depending on how it is actually structured, increasing the tax rates on wealthy resident’s capital gains or personal income would result in $250 million to $400 million in additional state revenue this year.

Instead of cutting vital programs and shifting even more of the burden onto local property tax payers, Connecticut elected officials should dismiss Malloy’s rhetoric and adopt a budget solution that is fair, honest and effective.

The question is, will elected officials do the right thing for their constituents or join Malloy by aligning themselves with the state’s wealthy.

 

STOP Malloy/Wyman from punishing students, parents, teachers and taxpayers on testing opt out!

A bill that would – at least partially – prohibit the Malloy administration from punishing students, parents, teachers and taxpayers when parents utilize their inalienable right to opt their children out of the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core SBAC) testing scheme will be coming up for a public hearing before the Legislature’s Education Committee on MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016.

House Bill 5555 would prevent the Malloy administration from using SBAC and the New SAT participation rates as part of the state’s absurd School Accountability System.

  • People who believe in public education;
  • People who believe that our schools are spending too much time on standardized testing and test prep;
  • People who believe our children need and deserve a comprehensive education and not one driven by testing;
  • People who believe that teaching should be done by teachers and not by for-profit software companies
  • People who believe in a parent’s right to make decisions on what is best for their child;

Should submit testimony, letters or comments about these issues to the Education Committee by Monday Morning – March 7, 2016. Emails should be sent to [email protected] and clearly state that they are related to House Bill 5555

For those who can attend the public hearing, it will take place in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building.  The hearing actually starts at 11 AM but speakers will be determined by a lottery system. Lottery numbers will be drawn from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. in the First Floor Atrium of the LOB. Speakers arriving after the completion of the lottery should report to Room 3100 of the LOB and will have their names placed at the end of the speaker list.

The Education Committee is also taking testimony on Senate Bill 380 which would change Malloy’s disastrous teacher evaluation program by removing student performance results on the Common Core tests (SBAC and NEW SAT) from the way teachers are rated. This would also be a critically important step in creating a teacher evaluation system that has a positive rather than a detrimental impact on public education.

Again, comments about these bills should be emailed to the Education Committee by Monday morning via [email protected]

Please Note:  Comment function is not presently working – trying to get it fixed ASAP

Hello Governor, a bit of truth about UConn’s “controversial” state employee contract is in order…

On January 27, 2016, the University of Connecticut Board of Trustees voted to approve a new Collective Bargaining Agreement between the University of Connecticut and the University of Connecticut Professional Employees Association (UCPEA), the non-teaching professional staff at UConn.

No member of the UConn Board of Trustees voted against the contract.  All voted yes, but one of the two alumni representatives, who abstained.

Over the past week, ratification of the contract by the Connecticut General Assembly has become controversial and Governor Dannel Malloy has suddenly become critical of the agreement despite the fact that, by law, Malloy is the President of the UConn Board of Trustees, Malloy appoints the majority of the members of the Board and Malloy own personal representative on the Board has missed 12 of the last 15 monthly meetings, including the Trustee meeting in January when the contract was approved.

As the debate groups, a headline in the Hartford Courant reads, “GOP Leaders Call for Vote Soon on Controversial UConn Contract.”  The Courant reports;

Len Fasano and House Republican leader Themis Klarides are calling for the full legislature to vote on a controversial contract for nearly 2,000 non-teaching employees at the University of Connecticut.

The contract will automatically go into effect if the legislature takes no action by March 9. But Fasano, other Republicans, and some Democrats say that a vote is needed on the multi-million-dollar contract to set the tone for future union awards. The contract calls for a 3 percent raise in the first year and then 4.5 percent increases for four consecutive years – including an increase in the workweek from 35 hours to 40 hours.

Last week, the CT Mirror article entitled,  Malloy: UConn pay raises don’t reflect new economic reality, explained that Governor Dannel Malloy was critical of the new state employee contract with non-teaching professional staff at the University of Connecticut claiming that it was out of step with current economic conditions.

Speaking at press conference, Malloy said;

“That contract does not fully represent the new economic reality, and I have some concerns about it, but the legislature is in charge on this one.  I think there is an economic reality that people are having a hard time adjusting to.”

[…]

The pending contract for the 1,839 members of the University of Connecticut Professional Employees Association provides for annual raises ranging from 3 to 4.5 percent over the next five years.

[…]

“I don’t play a role in it, but I will answer questions about the evaluation of it. I think I am going pretty far by saying that if it’s approved, if it becomes the contract, it will be a contract made in this year that will make all other contracts much more difficult to enter into, or to negotiate. It has implications… It’s going to make the legislature’s job a lot harder if they intend to balance the budget.”

Wait, What? 

Malloy said, “The legislature is in charge on this one.” 

And added, “I don’t play a role in it, but I will answer questions about the evaluation of it.”

Is Governor Malloy that naïve or does he really think we are that stupid?

As noted, according to Connecticut State Law, the governor serves as the President of the UConn Board of Trustees.

Malloy appointed 12 of the 21 regular members of the UConn Board AND his Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner of Education and Commissioner of Economic and Community Development are all members of the UConn Board due to the positions they hold in the Malloy administration.

Malloy also appoints a personal representative to the board to attend in his absence.

In the parlance of politics, the governor control the votes.

The truth is that all of Governor Malloy’s appointees to the UConn Board voted in favor of the proposed state employee contract including Board Chairman Larry McHugh, former Speaker of the House Tom Ritter and West Hartford Deputy Mayor Shari Cantor.

To even suggest that he had no role in the decision to approve the contract can only mean that he intentionally overlooked the important role he plays on the UConn Board of Trustees or he has decided to lie to the voters of Connecticut.

Meanwhile, the debate continues about whether the State Senate and State House of Representatives will hold a vote on the contract.  According to the latest Courant story,

The House Democrats talked about the UConn contract during their closed-door caucus last week at the Jackson Laboratory in Farmington, but no final decisions have been announced on whether there will be a vote by the full legislature.

[…]

House Speaker Brendan Sharkey of Hamden, who will play a key role in whether there is a formal vote, is concerned about the price of the contract for the UConn Professional Employees Association, known as UCPEA.

“Everyone understands the overall budget challenges we face, and I heard from legislators, both on the committee and not, who expressed understandable concerns, which I share, over the price tag of this contract,” Sharkey said.  “Through no fault of UCPEA, it is apparent that UConn negotiated this without consideration of the economic reality of the state, and their CFO couldn’t say how they are going to pay for it. The truth is it has to either come from taxpayers, more tuition hikes, or layoffs, and that concerns me greatly.”

A longtime political insider said the UConn contract is probably the most important union vote, politically, at the Capitol in the past 10 years.

Republicans say the legislature’s budget-writing committee missed a chance last week to set the fiscal tone by failing to block the contract for professional employees. House members on the committee voted in favor of the contract, which some legislators described as unaffordable and others said should be approved because it was bargained in good faith and approved by the university.

While the House members approved the contract, the Senate members battled to a 6-6 tie as they debated over whether the full legislature should approve the contract.

Sen. Beth Bye, a West Hartford Democrat who co-chairs the committee, voted in favor of the deal because she said that turning it down could eventually cost the state even more money.

[…]

Sen. John Kissel, a longtime lawmaker from Enfield who voted against the contract, said in an interview that the contract could eventually boomerrang on the employees.

“They’re setting themselves up for layoffs,” Kissel told Capitol Watch.  “I think it sets a bad standard because we have 15 others coming up. The other unions would look to that and say there’s precedent.”

Setting aside the arguments for and against this particular contract, the most amazing news of all is Malloy’s attempt to revise the reality surrounding his role in the contract and the fact that legislators are apparently going to allow him to get away with the charade.

Malloy Budget Plan – Coddle the rich while cutting vital state services

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016, Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy, flanked by Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman and the rest of his administration will submit his latest budget plan to a joint session of the Connecticut General Assembly.

Malloy’s approach, one that borrows directly from the disgraced trickle-down economic strategies of the Neo-Conservative/Neo Liberal philosophy, will be to balance Connecticut’s state budget by continuing to coddle Connecticut’s wealthiest citizens while cutting critically important health, human service and education programs for those who are struggling the most in today’s troubled economy.

The sad reality is that Connecticut’s most vulnerable citizens will be those who suffer most from Malloy’s proposals.

Governor “There Is No Budget Deficit – I Will Not Raise Taxes” Malloy will also propose shifting more of the burden for paying for government services onto Connecticut’s local property taxpayers, despite the fact that Connecticut’s property tax system is regressive and unfairly burdens middle-income and working families in Connecticut.

Finally, yet again, as if to reiterate that Malloy has to have it have it his way or no way, Governor Malloy will be proposing a dangerous and unprecedented power grab that would transfer significant budget control and oversight away from the Legislative Branch of government to the Executive Branch, giving him and his budget chief unparalleled authority over how appropriated state funds are actually spent.

Malloy Policy #1 – Coddle the Rich

According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a national non-partisan research organization that works on federal, state, and local tax policy issues,

Connecticut’s wealthiest pay 5.3 percent of their income in state and local taxes.  Connecticut’s middle income households pay 10.7 percent and Connecticut’s poorest pay 10.5 percent on state and local taxes.

Connecticut’s tax system is unfair, but rather than address this situation, Malloy has consistently refused to require that Connecticut’s wealthiest pay their fair share in taxes.

As in the past, Malloy is promising “not to raise taxes,” although that pledge does not include his upcoming proposal to raise the gas tax and re-institute tolls to pay for his transportation initiative after having diverted hundreds of millions of dollars from the Transportation Fund, over the past five years, to cover costs in the General Fund.

Malloy Policy #2 – Cut vital programs including those for Connecticut’s most vulnerable residents.

As reported by the CT Mirror’s Keith Phaneuf last Friday, Malloy promises ‘very austere’ state budget next week; Connecticut’s Governor will seek to balance the upcoming state budget on the backs of those who rely the most on state services.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy warned Friday that the spending plan he will offer state legislators next week will be a “very austere” budget with no tax hikes.

The Democratic governor, who needs to close a deficit projection topping $500 million in the preliminary budget for 2016-17, also all but ruled out use of the state’s modest emergency reserve.

“It’s an austere budget. I think everybody knows that,” the governor told reporters after the State Bond Commission meeting in the Legislative Office Building.

[…]

And while Malloy offered few hints on where he would cut, he did offer one big clue.

When asked whether the emergency cuts he ordered in September to close a shortfall in the current fiscal year might offer a blueprint of where he would look for savings in 2016-17, the governor responded: “It’s a start.”

Those emergency cuts fell most heavily on social services, hospitals, and public colleges and universities, though they touched most discretionary areas of spending, excluding municipal aid.

Malloy Policy #3 – Shift tax burden to the unfair local property tax

While details are scarce about where some of Malloy’s budget cuts will fall, one area that is definitely on the chopping block will be municipal aid.

Despite repeated promises not to cut aid to cities and towns, Malloy has done exactly that in recent years.  While cuts in municipal grants “reduce” the state budget, the costs are simply shifted onto local property taxpayers.  It is a  strategy that is even more unfair to middle and lower-income families in Connecticut.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s latest report also reveals that while Connecticut’s tax system is regressive, its property tax system is even more unfair.

Connecticut’s wealthiest pay 1.2 percent of their income in property taxes, the Middle Class 5.0 percent and the poor pay 5.3 percent of their money in local property taxes.

Malloy has already proposed cuts to the state property tax exemption for middle-income homeowners and additional cuts in municipal aid will further shift the overall tax burden onto the backs of working families in Connecticut.

Malloy Policy #4 – Seek greater executive branch control over budget

Finally, in what may be one of his most outrageous and irresponsible proposals yet, the power-hungry Governor is proposing to destroy critically important legislative oversight and control of the state budget.

As Phaneuf reports in today’s CT Mirror entitled, Malloy to seek greater executive branch control over budget

Sources familiar with the governor’s 2016-17 budget proposal say it won’t assign agency funding to many specific programs, moving instead toward the block-grant system used for state colleges and universities.

A block-grant system could tilt the balance of power away from the legislature, since lawmakers often use line items in the budget to shape executive agencies and programs and set priorities.

[…]

But the proposal still is likely to spark a battle between the branches of government over control of line-item appropriations and a debate over whether block grants would mask funding cuts for programs before a new budget is implemented…

[…].…Several sources familiar with that said it would give the Executive Branch broad new discretion to decide how budgeted funds are spent within each agency.

The legislature often directs agencies to operate programs “within available appropriations.” In other words, run the program as well as possible with the funding the legislature assigns.

But what if specific line items for programs don’t exist anymore? If a department is given one large block grant — and the authority to divvy up the funding as it sees fit — then administrators, and not the legislature, would decide which programs must get by with less.

The General Assembly’s modern role in molding state government and its policies through budgeting was shaped by a dramatic confrontation in 1969 with another Democratic governor, John N. Dempsey, and the legendary Democratic state chairman, John M. Bailey.

The Democrat-controlled General Assembly voted unanimously to defy Bailey, who then played a major role in setting the legislative agenda, and override Dempsey’s veto of the Legislative Management Act, a reform measure reflecting a desire by lawmakers to be, if not a truly equal branch of government, then at least a more assertive partner.

It led to the hiring of non-partisan professional researchers and financial analysts, who allowed legislators for the first time to make budget and policy decisions independent of the executive branch.  In 1970, a constitutional amendment further strengthened the General Assembly by authorizing it to meet annually, beginning in 1971.

Malloy’s budget plan will be made public on Wednesday.  At that point, the only thing that will stand in the way of more fiscal and political disaster will be the members of the Connecticut General Assembly…meaning that Connecticut citizens have good reason to be concerned.