Christine Palm

This week, the Legislature met in a two-day Special Session convened to clean up lingering issues from the regular session that ended on May 8. Normally, such Special Sessions deal with issues considered emergencies or are statutorily required, as was the case in a bill concerning how municipal car taxes are assessed.

However, the agenda for the Special Session was expanded to include several issues of a non-critical nature, which were bundled together with the car tax bill. I found two of these additional items extremely problematic. So, I voted “no” on the entire package.

It is important to me that my constituents understand my reasoning. When several disparate issues are lumped together in an “omnibus” bill (known in Special Session as an “Emergency Certification” bill) we legislators are sometimes then forced to vote against things we believe in, or for things we oppose. Such was the case this time.

Two provisions of the bill were so concerning that they overrode my support for the other provisions.

First, one section of the bill would have undermined local historic preservation efforts by allowing the commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) to override the concerns of historic preservationists in favor of commercial developers.

The second troublesome provision would have allowed the sale of Aquarion Water Co. (now owned by Eversource) to a New Haven-based regional water authority. I find this problematic because it effectively removed the oversight (regulation) of the public water supply from the Public Utilities Regulations Authority (PURA). Additionally, this portion of the bill was not vetted in a public hearing, which sets a very bad precedent for law-making.

We live in an era in which our nation’s institutions are being undermined. These institutions are led by content experts who study, defend, and regulate policies for the health, safety, and enjoyment of the public. I voted against this bill because I believe the one portion of the bill undermined local preservation advocates with expertise in historically significant buildings; and because the other undermined PURA’s ability to protect a public trust.

I took this vote knowing the bill would pass. (It passed the Senate Wednesday on a party line.) So, while my vote did not change the outcome — the bill passed 82 to 42 in the House of Representatives — I had to take the vote that my conscience dictated.