Liquor Control Act Changes (“Sunday Sales”)
The legislature this year made several changes to the state’s liquor control act. A new law expands the days and hours for alcohol sales, including allowing (1) off-premises sales on Sundays and (2) retailers who sell alcohol for off-premises consumption to sell one item below cost each month. It also establishes the Competitive Alcoholic Liquor Pricing Task Force to study Connecticut's liquor permitting and pricing laws and compare them with surrounding states.
(PA 12-17, most provisions effective upon passage)

BIENNIAL BUDGET

Revised FY 13 Budget
The FY 13 revised budget increases original FY 13 appropriations by $143.0 million to $20.5 billion. Although the budget act does not contain revised FY 13 revenue estimates, it changes the level of state revenue available by increasing spending in accounts that are partially reimbursed by federal funds, adjusting the transfer between the General and Transportation Funds, increasing funding for tax enforcement, and making various other adjustments. It largely eliminates the $546.5 million surplus that had been budgeted in the original FY 13 budget, leaving a $7.5 million balance.

Growth Rate. The growth rate for all appropriated funds is 1.6% over estimated FY 12 expenditures and 0.7% over the prior FY 13 appropriation level.

Spending Cap. The FY 13 revised budget is under the spending cap by approximately $142.3 million.
(HB 5557, various effective dates)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Death Penalty
The legislature eliminated the death penalty as a sentencing option for crimes committed on or after April 25, 2012. It did this by renaming “capital felonies,” such as murdering a law enforcement officer, someone under age 16, or someone during a kidnap or sexual assault or committing murder for hire or multiple murders at the same time, “murder with special circumstances.” It makes the penalty for this new crime life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

The act specifies that it does not affect capital felony convictions or cases pending before April 25, 2012. Crimes committed before that date can still be punished as capital felonies, which are punishable by either death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

The act also establishes a classification process and conditions of confinement for any inmate (1) convicted of murder with special circumstances or (2) whose death sentence is commuted by the Board of Pardons and Paroles, or reduced by a court, to life without the possibility of release.
(PA 12-5, effective on passage and applicable to crimes committed on or after that date)

Education Reform
The General Assembly’s 2012 education reform act made major education changes to, among other things,

• address the state’s academic achievement gap;
• identify and intervene in school districts and schools with low academic performance;
• increase state education funding to towns;
• provide more financial support for school choice programs;
• improve teacher training, qualifications, practice, and evaluation systems; and
• establish a separate governing board for the state’s technical high school system.

New School Readiness Program Spaces
The legislature approved funding for 1,000 new spaces in school readiness programs. Half of the new spaces must be located in the 10 school districts with the lowest academic performance, while the other half are split equally between the (1) priority and former priority districts that not among the 10 lowest and (2) so-called competitive districts, which are districts not included in either of the other two categories but that are either among the 50 poorest in the state or have one or more low-income schools.

Intensive Early Reading Program
The act creates a new intensive kindergarten-to-grade-three reading program to improve literacy and narrow the achievement gap. In each of the next two school years, five low-achieving schools will be selected to participate. The program must include (1) routine student reading assessments, (2) scientifically based instruction, (3) an intensive reading intervention strategy, and (4) an intensive summer school reading program.

The intervention strategy must include one reading coach and four reading interventionists for each school, all funded by the state. It also includes (1) teacher and administrator training in reading research and (2) administrator training in assessing classrooms to ensure students are proficient readers. Students at priority schools who are reading below proficiency must also be enrolled in an intensive summer school reading program that includes components named in the act.

Intervening in Low-Performing Schools
The act creates the “Commissioner’s Network of Schools” as a means for the state to intervene in low-performing schools and raise student academic achievement. By July 1, 2014, the commissioner must select up to 25 schools for the network, and selected schools must begin implementing school turnaround plans by that date.

When a school is chosen for the network, the act requires its school district to create a turnaround committee, which includes parents and teachers, to develop a turnaround plan for the school based on a menu of school improvement models. If the plan is deficient or no plan is submitted, the education commissioner can use the act’s models to develop his own plan for the school. The act provides for a streamlined collective bargaining process when union contracts need modification in order to carry out the turnaround plan.

The act allows a turnaround committee or the commissioner to choose various nonprofit or government entities to govern or manage network schools, but limits to six the number that can be governed by private nonprofit entities, including charter school management organizations that meet the act’s criteria.

The commissioner must provide funding, technical assistance, and operational support to schools participating in the commissioner's network. SBE must pay any costs of implementing a plan that exceed the school’s ordinary operating expenses.

School Choice Programs
The education reform act increases annual per-student grants to state charter schools, interdistrict magnet schools outside the Hartford region, and school districts operating regional agriculture science and technology centers. It also (1) provides an additional incentive for school districts with more than 4,000 students to increase their enrollment of out-of-district students under the Open Choice interdistrict school attendance program and (2) requires that two of the next four state charter schools approved before July 1, 2017 be schools offering a dual language or other specialized program for English language learners.

Education Cost Sharing (ECS) Grants and Alliance Districts
The act increases ECS grants to towns for FY 13 by $50 million in the aggregate. It also imposes conditions on ECS grant increases to the 30 towns with the lowest-performing school districts. Release of the additional funds to these “alliance districts” is contingent on the education commissioner’s approval of each district’s plan to improve student and school performance through such methods as extended learning time, improved reading programs, and additional training for teachers and other staff.

The state must also fund a minimum of 10 new family resource centers and 20 new or expanded school-based health clinics to be located in alliance districts.

Teachers
Qualifications. The act bolsters teacher preparation programs and teacher qualifications in several ways. It (1) establishes a state distinguished educator designation for experienced, successful teachers who have advanced education beyond the master’s degree and who meet SBE-established performance requirements; (2) starting July 1, 2013, requires all certified school employees working with students in kindergarten through grade three to take a practice version of an SBE-approved reading instruction exam; (3) starting July 1, 2015, requires teacher preparation programs to offer classroom experience in each of four semesters; and (4) starting July 1, 2016, requires an applicant for a professional educator certificate to hold a master’s degree in a subject relevant to their teaching.

Professional Development. Beginning July 1, 2013, the act revamps required professional development programs for teachers and administrators to emphasize improved practice and job-embedded individual and small-group coaching sessions. It requires all certified employees to participate. In addition, the act requires the education commissioner to establish a teacher professional development program for elementary school teachers to provide intensified training in reading instruction.

Annual Evaluations. The education reform act requires school districts to evaluate teachers and administrators every year using new evaluation and support programs that align with new state model guidelines. Before implementing their new programs, districts must train both the evaluators and teachers being evaluated. Once the program is in place, they must include ongoing training on their evaluation programs in their regular in-service training programs for teachers.

Tenure and Termination. Starting July 1, 2014, the act requires school superintendents to use evaluations to inform their decisions on granting tenure to teachers and administrators. It allows districts to terminate teachers or administrators if evaluations find them to be ineffective and they fail to successfully complete a remediation plan. Finally, the act streamlines teacher termination hearings by (1) reducing the maximum time for the process to unfold and (2) limiting each side’s testimony and evidence to six hours, unless the hearing official extends the time for good cause.

Technical High School System
The act changes the name of the regional vocational-technical schools to the technical high school system (CTHSS) and creates a new 11-member board to govern it. The new board consists of four business executives appointed by the governor, five members appointed by SBE, and the economic and community development and labor commissioners. The governor appoints the chairperson, who serves as a nonvoting ex-officio member of the SBE.

The act requires the CTHSS superintendent to submit a proposed operating budget for the system to the CTHSS board. If the board disapproves it, it must adopt an interim budget, which takes effect at the start of the fiscal year and remains in effect until the superintendent submits and the board approves a modified operating budget.
(SB 458, most provisions take effect July 1, 2012)

HIGHER EDUCATION

Remedial Education
A new law requires the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) and the community-technical colleges (CTC), beginning by the 2014 fall semester, to offer (1) certain students remedial support embedded with the corresponding entry level course in a college-level program and (2) certain other students an intensive college readiness program. It generally prohibits other forms of remedial education after that time. The bill also requires public high schools, CSUS, and CTC to align their curricula by the fall semester of 2016. Beginning by the 2014-2015 school year, it requires early assessment of eighth and 10th grade students' college readiness and the sharing of such results with students, parents or legal guardians, and schools.
(PA 12-40, effective July 1, 2012)

ELECTIONS

Campaign Finance
The legislature modified several state election laws affecting campaign finance and certain absentee voting and nominating procedures. Among other things, the new act:

• expands reporting, attribution, and disclaimer requirements for entities and individuals making independent expenditures;
• defines “campaign-related disbursements” and “covered transfers” and establishes reporting requirements for them;
• raises the limits on various contributions from individuals to political committees (known as PACs) and party committees; and
• allows military and overseas voters to return their voted absentee ballots by fax or email.

(HB 5556, effective upon passage)

Constitutional Restrictions on Election Administration
The legislature took the first step towards amending the state constitution to (1) remove restrictions on voting by absentee ballot and (2) permit a person to vote without appearing at a polling place on Election Day. Currently, the constitution sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in specified years as Election Day for legislative and statewide offices (Article 3 § 8 and Article 4 § 1). With one exception, it requires electors to gather at a meeting on this day to elect state officers (Article 4 § 2). The exception authorizes the General Assembly to pass a law allowing electors to cast their vote by absentee ballot if they will be out of town, sick, or physically disabled or the tenets of their religion prohibit secular activity on Election Day (Article 6 § 7).

Because the resolution did not pass by a three-fourths vote in each chamber, it will be referred to the 2013 legislative session, where it must again pass each chamber by a majority vote in order to appear on the 2014 general election ballot. If a majority of those voting in the general election approves the amendment, it will become part of the state constitution.
(HJ 2, referred to the 2013 legislative session)

Voter Registration
A new law allows eligible people to register to vote and cast a ballot on Election Day (i.e., the day of a regular state or municipal election). It establishes Election Day registration (EDR) procedures and requires the secretary of the state to report to the Government Administration and Elections Committee on EDR administration. It also requires the secretary to establish and maintain an online system for (1) new voter registration applications and (2) changes to existing registrations.
(PA 12-56, most provisions effective July 1, 2013)

ENERGY

Emergency Response (Storm Bill)
New legislation requires the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to (1) review electric and gas company emergency preparation and service restoration practices, infrastructure adequacy, and coordination efforts; (2) identify the most cost-effective levels of electric company tree trimming and system hardening needed to achieve maximum system reliability and minimize outages; and (3) establish electric and gas company emergency performance standards. It requires PURA to review the companies’ performance after an emergency and issue (1) orders to enforce the standards and (2) civil penalties for violations. The companies must also submit annual reports on their performance during emergencies.

The act requires PURA to establish standards for restoring intrastate telecommunications under certain circumstances after an emergency. It requires telephone and telecommunications companies to issue credits to customers who lose service under certain circumstances.

The act also, among other things, (1) adds provisions for expedited road clearing for public safety personnel after an emergency and (2) expands the scope of the state’s civil preparedness and training requirements.
(sSB 23, most provisions effective upon passage)

JUDICIAL MATTERS

Palliative Use of Marijuana
The legislature passed a law allowing a licensed physician to certify an adult patient’s use of marijuana after determining that the patient has a debilitating condition and could potentially benefit from the palliative use of marijuana, among other requirements.

Such patients and their primary caregivers must, among other things, register with DCP and pay certain fees. Patients and caregivers can possess a combined one-month marijuana supply. The act also creates licensing requirements for pharmacists to dispense the marijuana and for producers to grow it, and requires them to pay fees.

Subject to various conditions, the act prohibits patients, their caregivers or doctors, dispensaries, or producers from being prosecuted or penalized for specified actions relating to palliative marijuana use. The act does not allow patients to ingest marijuana at work, at school, in public, in moving vehicles, or in front of children.

Among various other things, the act also requires the DCP commissioner to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II controlled substance (it is currently in Schedule I, subject to the most stringent regulation).
(PA 12-55, most provisions effective October 1, 2012)

Volunteers will meet at the town hall parking lot between 9:00 and 11:00 AM on Saturday, April 21st, where they will be given a clean-up assignment, rubber gloves, trash bags, and orange safety vests. Volunteers may also sign up for a section of road in advance, if they prefer. The rain date is Sunday, April 22nd.

Paine's will be removing all the recyclables and trash collected at 3:00 p.m. from the town hall parking lot. Refreshments will be provided by Fitzgerald's.

Interested volunteers should email Linda at Linda.Schofield@cga.ct.gov or call her at her office at 860-240-8635.

“It has been a singular life honor to serve as Simsbury’s state representative for the last six years,” Schofield said.  She thanked her constituents for their trust and support in electing her to three consecutive terms.

Schofield noted that she was proud of her accomplishments during her time in office. Some of the significant bills she worked hard to get passed include: expanding recycling programs, providing better health benefits for low income seniors in a manner that simultaneously reduced costs to the state of Connecticut, and three years prior to the federal passage of our concept, gave young adults the option to remain on their parents health insurance.

"On behalf of all the Democratic Town Committee, I want to thank Linda Schofield for her service in the General Assembly and her commitment to the residents of Simsbury,” said Jeff Tindall, Simsbury Democratic Town Committee Chair. “She was a tireless advocate for all of Simsbury and an independent thinker.  Her accessibility and passion for constituent services will be greatly missed.  Linda leaves big shoes to fill for whoever has the privilege to serve as her successor."

Scofield also used her office to initiate projects in town, such as an annual litter clean up and the upcoming ArtWalk on May 19th.

Schofield has not yet decided what she will do next, but noted that she wants a little time to work in her garden and enjoy the company of family of friends before starting her next chapter in life.

People often complain that they don't like either of the two major party choices they have on election day, but they don't vote in the primaries—when their vote would actually carry relatively more weight (because their vote would be one among fewer voters) and would have a greater influence on determining who ultimately wins a given electoral race.

Indeed, in some districts where a single party truly dominates the area, the primary is essentially the election. Yet, voter turn-out for primaries remains low even there.

Today far fewer voters are registered with any party, and more and more are registered as unaffiliated—or independent. In Simsbury, for example, the largest single group of voters is unaffiliated, with 5,485 voters. There are 5,413 Republicans, 4,647 Democrats, and 62 registered with other minor parties.

Nationally, only about 30% of voters are enrolled as Democrats and 28% as Republicans.

Some voters have told me they aren't affiliated with a party because they don't want to have to vote only for candidates of that party. This is a misconception. You can vote for anyone you want to in general elections, even if you are enrolled as a Democrat or Republican.

Others have told me they are independent because they don't want all the junk mail from each party. But I suspect that unaffiliated voters get even more junk mail than party-enrolled voters, because candidates assume they are more undecided than party loyalists.

Although I personally support and have submitted bills in the past allowing independents to vote in the primaries, this is not the current law in Connecticut. Furthermore, there appears to be little appetite amongst my legislative colleagues for adopting such a change.

Even in the highly publicized Presidential primaries of 2008, in Connecticut's Democratic turnout statewide was just 51.1 percent; and Republican turnout just 36.7 percent. Simsbury voters beat state averages with 43 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats casting ballots.

In the last gubernatorial primary, Simsbury turnout was 34 percent of eligible Democrats and 36% of eligible Republicans. In Simsbury's last state senate primary, in which only Republicans could vote, only 15.4 percent, or 814 voters, came to the polls.

National studies show that in recent years, about 17-19 percent of registered voters vote in primaries. So one-fifth of the electorate in many ways is determining the outcome of the election. One might appropriately assume that the one-fifth that votes in primaries is not representative of the vast center of the country, which may help explain why there appears to be more polarization in politics as voter turn-out declines.

The Presidential Primary is Tuesday, April 24. If you want to get in on the important action of the primary election, here are a few key dates to remember.

If you want to change parties in order to vote in the Presidential primary, the deadline for doing so is Jan. 24. If you are unaffiliated or not registered at all, and you want to vote in the Presidential primary, the deadline to enroll by mail in a party is April 19 or to enroll in person at town hall is April 23.

And don't forget to mark your summer calendars. Primaries for United States Congress and Senate will be held on Aug. 10.

Find something interesting or troubling? Shoot me an email at linda.schofield@cga.ct.gov or call me at home at 651-8739

The Good News

Income tax revenues have fluctuated enormously over the past few years. The state saw tax revenue decrease by 27% in 2009 and 21% last year, but tax collections sharply increased 27.7% for 2011. However, even with that recent increase, 2011 tax collections were still nearly $500 million below what they were in 2008.

Similarly, sales tax revenue has begun to improve. Sales tax revenue plummeted by 7.9% in 2009 and 3.5% last year. This year sales taxrevenue went up 4.9%. This of course reflects an increase in sales, which is a sign of the slowly recovering economy.

Connecticut’s unemployment rate has been and is projected to remain below national averages. In November unemployment dipped from its high a year ago of 9.1% to 8.4%. As of October, the state had gained 7,500 net jobs this year. At its recession low, Connecticut lost 119,200 jobs and has now gained 35,200—almost a third—of those jobs back.

America’s gross domestic product is growing, albeit slowly. Growth for 2012 is projected at 2.4%. Real domestic output in the United States has just now returned to its pre-recession level of 2007. It fell 5.1% and has now recovered its former peak.

Connecticut’s bond rating is about in the middle compared to other states with between 19 and 27 states rated better than Connecticut by according to Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch.

Connecticut now has 49,989 state employees, compared to its pre-recession high of 55,666 employees.

The state ended last year with a surplus of $236.9 million. The current year is projected to have a surplus of about $100 million. Remember that a surplus means only that less was spent than was taken  in—it doesn’t reflect debt. If your household income was $80,000 and you spent $79,000 on all your bills last year, you’d have a $1,000 surplus. But you could also still have a $200,000 mortgage debt and a $10,000 car loan to pay off.

The Bad News

The state’s unemployment trust fund is currently $810 million in debt to the federal government and projected to be $1.2 billion in debt to the federal government by the time unemployment really turns around.

The state’s long term obligations are 5.6% compared to last year, which is $20,450 for every Connecticut citizen. 70.4% of this is for unfunded retiree benefits for teachers and state employees. The remainder is primarily state bonding—i.e. borrowing for projects like road repairs and school construction. 30% of the state’s bonding is related to UConn projects.

What Is Needed

The state needs to start saving and preparing for the next recession, by putting money back into the rainy day fund, paying down debt, and funding the pension system.

The state needs to continue to support businesses as they create jobs.

The state needs to resist any pressure to spend any “surpluses” on programs and services, and use those funds to pay down debt.

Four committees of the General Assembly—Energy & Technology, Public Safety, Labor & Public Employees, and Planning & Development—will hold hearings on September 19th and 26th to hear from representatives and workers from electric, phone and internet companies, along with municipal officials and members of the general public.

“Although our utility crews did a great job getting most of Simsbury turned back on quickly—that wasn’t the case everywhere,” said Schofield. “These hearings will be an opportunity for Connecticut’s electric, phone and internet providers to explain their response to Irene and discuss how they will handle the next storm and work more effectively with municipal crews to clear the roads.”

Schofield said House Democrats have set up Facebook and Twitter accounts at www.facebook.com/pages/After-Irene-CT/262762473747233 and http://twitter.com/#!/AfterIreneCT to accept public comments and suggestions about experiences with the storm and the state’s readiness for and response to it.

On September 19th, the hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. with representatives of CL&P, UI and municipal utilities, followed by municipal representatives and officials from telephone, cable and wireless utility companies. The hearing will conclude at 4:30 p.m.

On September 26th, members of the public will have the opportunity to appear before the committees beginning at 9:00 a.m., followed by union representatives and the electric utility companies. Members of the public will have an additional chance for comment before the hearing closes that afternoon.

As way to give back and have fun, the Red Stone Pub is starting a guest bartender program, beginning Sept. 20 from 6 to 8 p.m. with State Rep. Linda Schofield (D-Simsbury).

Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman with State Rep. Linda Schofield. Schofield will be pouring drinks at the Red Stone Pub Sept. 20 from 6 to 8 p.m. to benefit the ABC house in Simsbury. Credit Red Stone Pub

Managing partner Mark Lubetkin is encouraging people to stop by the pub and let Schofield pour them a drink to benefit Simsbury’s A Better Chance (ABC) house.

Lubetkin is donating $1 per drink to the ABC program, which provides educational opportunities to students of color. In exchange Schofield has to try her hand at mixology.

“Whether you want soda water or something a little stronger this is a great way to help promising young students reach their full potential, while also supporting a new local business,” said Schofield. “As a board member of the ABC program and a person who enjoys the cozy atmosphere at the Red Stone Pub, this will be a lot of fun.”

Simsbury ABC is one of 29 ABC programs located throughout the country that recruit motivated, talented students of color and place them in outstanding public high schools. The students live in a residential house and attend the local high school. The Simsbury ABC House, the first one in Connecticut, was established in the early 1970s.

The guest bartender program will continue every other week with Tom Gilmore from the Rotary, Nancy Hasse, Mary Glassman and John Hampton to name some, said Lubetkin.

"The guest bartender program is designed to support the local community by encouraging participation in local charities and other programs that require community support to thrive. The Red Stone Pub is really geared toward being an active part of the community and affording our patrons a comfortable and familiar place to gather," he said.

In the next few weeks the pub will be starting the fire and the fall menu. Some of the new items will include an Italian beef sandwich, turkey chili, pretzels with IPA mustard, and other fall type items. And there is a full complement of Oktoberfest beers.

The Red Stone Pub is located in the Courtyard Building, 10 Mall Way. It is open Tuesdays through Saturdays at 5 p.m.

Years before I even thought of running for office I spoke at a conference of legislators from across the country. In chatting with those who came from states with terms limits, they all said the same thing—elected folks come and go quickly, but the staff and lobbyists stay in place. So they wind up being the ones with more power and knowledge than the legislators, who are still finding their way to the washroom. That argument against term limits made sense to me.

Also, regardless of what political vantage point you hold, good and bad qualities are pretty evenly distributed among legislators of long tenure and also among freshmen legislators. Old-timers are no better or worse than the newcomers.

You have the ability to limit terms already—by voting your legislators out of office if you think they are doing a bad job. And indeed, this happens with more frequency than you realize.

I did a little analysis of the turn-over of legislators in Connecticut, looking at data from the last 31 years—which covers the tenure of the longest serving member of the House. I discovered that the average length of service is 9.2 years (4.6 terms), the median length of service is 8 years (4 terms). Nearly a third (30.5%) serve only one or two terms before leaving. Only 8.1% serve 10 terms or more. To put that another way, of the 721 legislators who have served CT since 1981, only 33 served over 10 terms.

Many folks seem to think that legislators would vote differently if they knew they were not going to be able to run again and that they vote “badly just to get re-elected.” But the key to getting re-elected is to vote in a manner that your constituency approves of. So I am not convinced that there is a causal link between imminent departure and “better” voting records, however better is defined.

However, I do believe that there is a basis for the frustration of the voters who feel that their legislator does not reflect their district. This may be at times because their legislator votes for some things they may not like in order to get other things they or their constituents want. Constituents are not always aware of these trade-offs and see only the votes they disagree with.

I don’t believe term limits would change this, even while I wish that it could be different and that each matter would be voted on as a single item, based solely on the merits of that particular bill.

Bills are raised and voted in legislative committees before they ever get to the House or Senate for a vote. Usually a bill is not in its final form when it is voted on in committee and legislators may have only received the bill language minutes before being required to vote on it. So, often legislators accompany their yes votes in committee with a statement that they are supportive of the concept, but may change their vote in the House or Senate, pending the final language of the bill.

Conversely, legislators may vote no in a committee because the bill language is so unsettled that they are not yet comfortable with it, even though they may agree with the general concept. They may say they are “flagging” the bill with a no vote to assure future scrutiny.

The majority of bills passed by committees never get a vote in the House or Senate. Of the thousands of bills introduced each year, only a few hundred make it to a full vote in both chambers. So, sometimes a legislator will vote for a bill in committee that they don’t actually like, knowing that it will die long before it ever gets full consideration. They may do this out of courtesy to the introducer or supporters of the bill.

When a bill gets to the House or Senate, the leaders of each chamber make sure they have the votes to pass the bill before they bring it up for a vote. In the four years I’ve been in the House, I have never seen a bill voted down in the House. Occasionally a bill is essentially talked to death and shelved without a vote. But, that strategy only works if the leadership has other bills they want to get to, and therefore they don’t want to waste time on the offending bill.

Even though the leadership might know they have just enough votes to pass a bill, they generally prefer to pass bills with unanimous or at least bi-partisan support. Therefore, they are sometimes willing to compromise with the opponents of a given bill to expedite its passage, avoid any efforts at talking it to death, and reduce the risk of a veto. Given this occasional willingness to compromise, the opponents are then left with a decision: Compromise, try to change the language and vote for a less than perfect bill. Or criticize the bill, vote no and let it pass anyway.

It is very important for the public to understand that sometimes the legislators who are grand-standing and making fiery statements about a bill could have improved the bill by engaging in discussion. For example, if Representative Smith really believes the best thing for the public is a 10% reduction  and the bill proposes a 20% reduction, would you rather that he compromise at 15% and vote yes or that he make a ruckus and vote no, knowing the bill will pass with a 20% reduction anyway?

Representative Smith may choose to do the latter, even though he knows a 15% reduction is better for his constituents than 20%, because he fears his constituents (or future opponent) will chastise him for supporting anything above 10%. So, it is important, whenever possible, to know the context of a vote before judging it.

Although there has been some controversy about Gov. Malloy's proposal to expand the UConn Health Center, we both voted to invest additional funding to transform the health center into a leading national academic and medical center.

The UConn Health Center currently includes medical and dental schools, the John Dempsey Hospital, research facilities, and various outpatient services.

The planned expansion project — Bioscience Connecticut — includes new construction and renovations at existing facilities in Farmington. This will allow UConn to increase its current bioscience research capacity, increase the number of scientists, and expand incubator facilities to encourage new business start-ups.

Jobs — around 3,000 construction jobs — will be created in the short term, but more importantly jobs will be created in the long term. Not just any jobs, but high-paying jobs in one of the few growth industries — health care. This includes not only the 683 jobs at the health center itself — faculty, nurses, doctors, researchers, etc. — but also hundreds of new private sector jobs in spin-off companies that arise from shared research and patents.

Thousands of new well-paying jobs in the Farmington Valley are good for our towns and our property values.

This project does not increase total borrowing by the state. We are just doing less bonding for other projects around the state to make room for this vital investment.

Gov. Malloy's proposal builds on Gov. Rell's plan, which was authorized last year. Under Rell's proposal, the state already committed to spend $365 million to overhaul the health center complex, which was originally built in 1961.

The new funding — $294 million — approved this year, will go towards increasing enrollment at the medical and dental schools to help assure an adequate supply of health care professionals to meet forecasted shortages, especially in primary care.

In addition, the existing medical and dental clinics will be expanded with new funding, offering increased access to affordable services for Farmington Valley residents who lack health insurance or have limited insurance benefits.

Fifty new adult inpatient beds will also be added — although that's only a net of 10 beds, since 40 NICU beds are to be transferred to the Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford.

Last, the new funding builds our capacity for innovation:

A recent study has shown that almost all job growth in the United States is driven by start-ups.

Job creation at newer companies is more stable during recessions, according to the same study, while jobs at older businesses are extremely susceptible to economic downturns.

This means, if we want to end job stagnation in Connecticut and move the state's economy forward, then we need to increase incubator facilities that cultivate start-up businesses. Bioscience Connecticut does just that — it provides space and support for early-stage companies, and it expands the center's research capacity to generate more patents.

Lack of money often stands in the way of transforming good ideas or new technology into viable businesses. Bioscience Connecticut means that more lab space, equipment and other resources necessary for research and development will be right here.

More talented scientists will have the opportunity to create and grow new businesses right here in Connecticut.

Start-ups have the potential to grow into successful companies that create employment and keep a well-educated and highly-paid workforce right here in Connecticut. That is a great return on the state's investment.

Another long-term benefit of the project is that it will generate more revenue for Connecticut (taxes and patents), and make the health center financially self-sufficient through greater reimbursement for services.

We voted yes to Bioscience Connecticut, because it's a smart investment that will have a long-term payoff for the Farmington Valley and for the state.

The Simsbury lawmaker, who has gained a reputation at the capitol for being a fiscal moderate willing to take on her own party’s leadership, collected the support of  numerous Democratic and Republican lawmakers in less than a day, forcing legislative leaders to reject the governor’s proposed reductions in municipal funding. These cuts would have gone into effect, unless the state employee unions somehow ratified the concession agreement, saving the state $1.6 billion over two years. As envisioned in the initially proposed bill, the decision to cut funding to towns would not be finalized until as late as Sept 30th, leaving towns in limbo until then.

 “It was unacceptable to hold 169 municipal budgets hostage for months while things are worked out,” said Schofield. “This was not just about Simsbury. In every municipality in Connecticut, their budgets are in place and any changes in state aid would have wreaked havoc with property taxes and with services to their residents.”

The governor recommended the cuts as part of a revised budget that became necessary in the wake of state employee union rejection of a $1.6 billion labor concession package.

Schofield prepared an amendment to the proposed bill, to restore all municipal funding. Her amendment proposed reducing the new Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and using the $55 million that would be saved to restore all state aid to towns.

“I supported the Governor's bill proposal, with the exception of the cut to town aid. Upon learning of that section of his proposed bill, I knew something had to be done and it had to be done quickly,” said Schofield. “The Earned Income Tax Credit is a noble goal, but no one has that benefit now and the intended recipients of this cash program would not perceive a reduction in the program as a take away, because they would still be getting a brand new benefit, albeit at a reduced rate. It didn't make sense to me to cut funding for town services, which many people rely on, while creating a brand new cash program at great expense.” 

Ultimately, the governor and legislative leaders recognized that there was enough support to pass Schofield's amendment, which was to have been co-sponsored or supported by over 30 Democrats and also enjoyed the support of the Republicans. So, the leadership modified the bill to eliminate cuts to municipalities. They did not use Schofield's idea for reducing the EITC, and instead gave the governor authority to lay-off even more state employees in order to cover the cost.

“I’m proud that we stood firm and protected our municipal budgets,” Schofield said. “Many of us have been saying for years that we need property tax reform. Connecticut already has the second highest property taxes in the nation. We hardly need to make those matters worse.”

It’s important to remember that there are 187 legislators, including 36 senators and 151 representatives. Of those, 56 are on the Appropriations Committee, which looks at the spending side of the budget. And, 53 are on the Finance Committee, which considers the revenue side of the ledger.

As with any work project, there’s an optimum staffing level: too few workers and the project suffers delays, too many and it is paralyzed. I can honestly say that there are more than enough legislators on the Appropriations and Finance Committees, so that legislators assigned to other committees can certainly devote their time to other duties.

There are other issues — some urgent and admittedly many non-urgent — that also demand our attention. We must make changes in state laws to conform with federal requirements, to keep our statutes relevant in the context of changes in modern life — such as technology, to respond to new situations like wind generators, and to try to achieve important policy goals such as job creation or administrative streamlining.

Let me help you understand the budget development process a bit better. I am on the Appropriations Committee, which is divided into several subcommittees. Each of these looks at specified agencies and programs in a given area — for example human services or transportation. These bipartisan sub-committees then report their recommendations to the co-chairs of the full Appropriations Committee.

At that point the process goes “underground.” The co-chairs and legislative leaders decide which recommendations to accept or reject, and they develop a spending proposal, which may or may not look like the governor’s proposal. Simultaneously, the Finance Committee explores options for raising the revenue needed to cover the expenditures that the Appropriations committee wants to make. As you might imagine, there is a tension there, since the Finance Committee may not want to raise as much revenue as the Appropriations Committee wants to spend.

The spending and revenue packages developed by leadership are presented to their respective committees — Appropriations or Finance — for a vote by the full committees. Once passed by the committees, the budget packages are blended into one package and go forward to the full House and Senate for consideration.

But before they are ever voted on by the House and Senate, the legislative leaders and the governor’s office negotiate over differences between their respective budgets. Although we legislators frequently provide our personal input to the negotiating parties, we are not privy to the negotiations themselves.

Hopefully what emerges is a compromise that can both pass the legislature and be supported by the governor. Failing that, we have a back and forth like we saw two years ago, when the legislature passed budgets that the governor vetoed and the governor proposed ideas that the legislature did not take up.

There are frequently alternative budgets developed by the minority party, or other groups of legislators who are not happy with the proposed budget. In both of the last two budget debates, I and the moderate Democrats developed an alternative budget proposal, but it was also rejected by the leadership and not considered by the full legislature.

So, although I think we can all agree that our number-one priority this year was to adopt a budget that makes sense for our state, that process by no means precludes the legislature’s ability to do other things simultaneously, without diminishing the level of attention it would otherwise give to the budget.

Pros

The governor’s leadership was key in crafting a budget that did not rely on borrowing, one-time revenue sources, or other gimmicks, as it has been for many, many years. While I did not support the budget, I did appreciate the effort to truly balance the budget and to adopt generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), so that we stop pushing the state’s financial problems off into the future and begin to address our long-term structural deficits by paying down our debt and unfunded pension liabilities. For too long our state’s leaders have sought to gain short-term popularity through spending, while jeopardizing long-term solvency, thus burdening future taxpayers.

The adopted budget did “fix” some of the things people disliked the most in the governor’s original budget proposal, by:

*Restoring $300 of the popular $500 property tax credit,

*Restoring the funding that enables towns to provide a property tax credit to manufacturers for equipment,

*Removing the 3-cent increase in gasoline taxes, and

*Eliminating the taxes that would have devastated certain industries — including the property tax on boats, the sales tax on boat services, the sales tax on auto trade-ins, and the so-called “coupon tax.”

The ratio of cuts to taxes is roughly 50/50, if the annual $1 billion in state employee concessions is included as a cut. If employee concessions don’t materialize, the ratio of other proposed cuts and taxes is 24 percent cuts to 76 percent taxes.

Cons — the reasons I voted NO.

An enormous number of you contacted me, urging that we rein in spending and downsize government, before resorting to new taxes. I did not feel we had exhausted all reasonable efforts to reduce state spending. In fact, this budget includes $483 million next year and $509 million the following year in funding for new or expanded programs. As I have frequently said, the first thing to do when you’re in a hole is to stop digging!

A small group of us who opposed the budget worked on our own alternative budget that identified significantly more savings without creating an undue hardship on people dependent on the safety net. Our budget eliminated some of the taxes we most opposed and fully restored the property tax credit. We presented our alternate budget to legislative leadership, but it was rejected.

The budget that was adopted did not reduce total actual spending at all, and includes the largest tax increase in the history of the state. Budgeted spending is estimated to increase very slightly, $11 million in 2012 and $438 million in 2013. Without counting the hospital or corporate taxes, the increase on Connecticut taxpayers is 8 percent.

Some of these new taxes will hurt jobs and businesses. For example, a new tax is levied on internet sales. While this is theoretically more fair to local retailers, in reality, until certain federal laws are fixed, this tax will be readily avoided by internet sellers and produce no new revenue. However, in order to avoid the tax, internet sellers will take steps that kill jobs in Connecticut, as has happened in the few other states that have tried this tax.

A new 3-percent tax is levied on “cabarets,” but only during any hours in which they have live music and liquor, making for a very administratively complex situation. These cabarets are not clearly defined, but would include restaurants, bars, the symphony, the Simsbury Meadows, and possibly the Riverview. All of these will either have to tack on an extra 3 percent to your dinner, drinks, entrance fee, and function room fees, or they will have to stop employing any entertainers. Neither is good for jobs or business.

The new tax on electric generation will be passed on to ratepayers, not only hurting families and seniors, but adding costs to manufacturers and other businesses that rely on electric power to operate. This sort of tax drives away jobs.

The loss of $200 of the current $500 property tax credit and the phasing out of the 3-percent income tax rate really hurts middle income families and seniors the most.

It was not an easy decision to vote no, and I can honestly tell you that I literally lost a lot of sleep worrying about it. There are lots of good things in the budget. And I recognized that we couldn’t balance it without some new taxes. But, in the end, I felt it went too far on the tax side and not far enough in looking for ways to make our government leaner.

Next steps

This budget also has a billion-dollar-per-year hole that is supposed to be achieved through concessions from the state employees. So far, there has been no agreement between the governor and unions to such concessions.

In the absence of a concession agreement, the governor has begun to prepare for mass layoffs of state employees.

I hope the state workers will be reasonable and agree to some significant changes and givebacks, but if not—layoffs will be absolutely necessary.

So, I thought I’d help you understand both the complex process of making those layoffs as well as the consequences we should all expect to feel, aside from the obvious toll layoffs will have on any unfortunate state employee who loses a job.

Laying off unionized state employees is very different than laying off private sector non-unionized workers. Unlike in many private sector companies, there is no severance pay, so employees are entitled to from two to eight weeks of notice before termination, depending on length of service and which union they are in (the state has 33 bargaining units). After being notified of the layoff, the employee has the right to review his seniority ranking and submit any information he/she feels appropriate to correct such information.

Because of the seniority system, the layoff of any individual can start a cascade of what are called “bumping rights.” This is what happens: “Betty,” a nurse supervisor, has the right to “bump” anyone less senior than her in her job class in the agency. If there is no one, then in many instances she can also bump a less senior person in a lower ranked job class, which—in Betty’s case—would be a nurse. Betty would also be able to move into any vacancy approved for hiring—if there is a vacancy in her job class in another agency.

In one large union, these bumping rights allow laid-off individuals to bump across agencies. I had experience with this administrative nightmare when I was the Medicaid Director years ago. So “Sheila,” a planning analyst in the Health Department bumps “Joe,” a planning analyst in the Department of Transportation, who in turn bumps “Mike” in the Department of Environmental Protection and on and on. Each time a bump occurs, the newly bumped person has to be given their two to eight weeks notice. Depending on how many bumps occur, it can be months before anyone actually leaves. During this time, productivity is hampered by the daily stress of wondering if you might be bumped by someone from another department.

Once all of the musical chairs stop, you have loads of people in jobs they are qualified for, according to job classification, but about which they may know nothing.

To avoid as much bumping as possible, the administration may try to lay off the least senior people right from the start or to eliminate entire classes or even entire agencies.

This system is byzantine and I would love to see it changed. But these are the rules we have to live with under current union contracts, so there is no option to conduct layoffs differently at this time. Another contract provision prohibits the state from laying off state employees and replacing them with private sector workers. So, state layoffs will not result in an increase in private sector jobs or services, even though they will result in a diminishment of service.

While there are many opportunities for downsizing in a thoughtful way in state government, the current administration has not been in office long enough to have had time to reorganize programs and processes. Indeed, some agencies’ commissioners have not even been officially appointed yet. Process re-engineering, which is desperately needed and could indeed result in substantial efficiency improvements, takes time and resources to implement.

These layoffs, because of the urgency of their implementation, will not be accompanied by that sort of process re-engineering. So, you should expect to see service turn-around times deteriorate for things such as permit and program eligibility applications, road repairs, and many other things. Hopefully in the long run, the process improvements can be made to accommodate a smaller workforce. I know Governor Malloy is committed to making those process improvements.

I’m sure, knowing the complexity of the layoff process; you will join me in supporting an agreement to concessions instead. But if the state workers do not agree to concessions, I will fully support layoffs.

If you would like to discuss state workers, the budget or any other matter, please email me at Linda.Schofield@cga.ct.gov or call me at 860-240-8635.

The $18.5 billion state budget includes $5.4 billion for employee and retiree costs. This includes $3.5 billion for wages of current employees, $596 million for pension funding, and $1.3 billion for health and other benefits for employees and retirees. In other words, about 29% of the state budget is for wages and benefits for retirees and employees.

Generous benefits were historically given to public sector workers to offset low wages, but wages are no longer below private sector on average. Connecticut state employees' wages are 10 percent higher than equivalent jobs in the private sector.

Benefits in the private sector average 25 percent of salary and in the state sector benefits average 60.5 percent of salary — 167 percent higher than in the public sector.

But averages don't tell the whole story. The state generally pays more for jobs that require less responsibility and/or education, but less than the private sector for jobs requiring the most responsibility and/or education. For example, college professors earn more at private colleges (averaging $80,118) than public colleges in Connecticut ($65,047). The Commissioner of the Department of Social Services, who runs a $5 billion agency overseeing Medicaid and numerous other programs, earns $166,980 per year. Chief executive officers of similarly-sized health insurance companies earn over a million dollars per year, including bonuses, and in addition they often get stock options as well.

Media reports of highly-paid state employees earning hundreds of thousands per year or pulling down enormous pensions, always fail to mention that those employees are or were specialist physicians at UConn Hospital (who could choose to earn similar amounts in private practice) or sports coaches at UConn. A 2009 comparison of coaching salaries showed UConn's football and basketball head coaches earn far in excess of other New England state universities. An old report from 2005 showed women's basketball coach Geno Auriemma was the highest paid and men's basketball coach Jim Calhoun the second-highest paid among their peers in Division 1-A schools. Interestingly, a recent poll in the press showed the majority of Connecticut residents don't seem to mind paying the coaches a lot of money!

It is difficult to compare some job classes that really only exist in the public sector, like police officers and judges. One report notes that state employees tend to be older and better educated, accounting for some of the difference in wages.

Here is a 2010 Department of Labor comparison (doesn’t include overtime or bonuses) of average yearly salaries of some jobs that are pretty standard across sectors:

Here is a 2008 comparison from the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes which also shows that less educated state employees make more than private sector employees while more educated, skilled public sector employees are not as well compensated as their private sector counterpoints

Governor Rell and the unions did agree to a deal two years ago to save the state money, which included the following changes in state employee compensation:

• Wage freezes in 2010, which means that employees get no cost of living allowances (COLA), but still get “step” increases and longevity payments
• Seven furlough days across 2.5 years, which equals a 1.1% wage give-back
• All employees pay an additional $350 annual premium for individual health insurance, saving $20 million per year
• All employees pay higher prescription co-pays, saving about $19 million a year; and
• All employees with less than five years of service with the state contribute 3% of their salary toward retiree health insurance, saving about $15 million a year.

State contributions towards funding pension obligations were suspended, leaving the state with greater unfunded liabilities to be paid down the road. Note that state employees hired in the last several years also already contribute 3 percent towards their pensions.

Gov. Malloy has made very clear that the state employee unions will be part of the solution to our budget deficit, and he has set an expectation of $1 billion per year in concessions, or failing that, layoffs. Of course, reaching agreement will be a challenge. Keep in mind that a $1 billion is a lot when compared to the total of only $5 billion the state spends on all employees and retirees. Since current retiree pensions are untouchable under federal law, this makes the cut a rather large amount of givebacks to extract from current state employees.

It is important to understand that union contracts are negotiated only by the governor and the unions. The legislature is not involved in that process.

Gov. Rowland negotiated the current union contract for benefits — a 20-year deal that doesn't expire until 2017. Contracts cannot legally be changed by either party alone. So, the contract can only be changed before 2017 if the unions agree to renegotiation.

I hope this helps you better understand the constraints facing Gov. Malloy and the unions as they try to work together to achieve savings for the state. More detail on this topic will be included in my e-newsletter, which is available on my website at www.housedems.ct.gov/schofield/

As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to email me at Linda.Schofield@ cga.ct.gov or call me at 860-240-8635.

Let me first say that the Governor has inherited an unprecedented budget deficit and there are no pretty options for fixing it. I personally believe that he and his new team tried their best, after only 6 weeks in their new jobs, to put forth a budget that they felt would solve the budget shortfall not only for the short term but for the long term as well. In addition, I believe that they tried to distribute the burden across all strata and sectors, even if it the apportionment didn't come out exactly as you or I might have wished. I also appreciate his commitment to evaluating the impact of every decision on the economy and job creation.

The Positives: The Governor did do many things that I like in his proposal. There is no borrowing or other gimmicks. He also devotes more money to pay down our debt and unfunded pension liabilities.

The governor adopts generally accepted accounting principles (GAPP)—something I have pushed for in previous budget cycles. Contributing towards pension liabilities and paying off debt are standard practice in the private sector under GAAP rules, and this is a far better long run approach to fiscal management, even though this adds to the expense column when comparing the proposed budget to last year's budget. But this NOT new spending—we just never wrote it into the budget, indeed, in the last budget pension funding was suspended, adding to the state's unfunded liabilities.

State spending is actually frozen in the first year of Governor Malloy's budget despite media reports that suggest otherwise. (There is a complex explanation for the discrepancy in footnote #1 at the bottom of this document.)

Governor Malloy's tax plan is broad based and diversified, which economists believe makes for greater fiscal stability and predictability. Connecticut taxes also continue to remain below tax levels of nearby states, (though not necessarily below some key competitor states, like Georgia and Texas, where businesses and people are migrating). The corporate tax increases are temporary, so less likely to drive away businesses.

The budget proposal includes numerous pages of proposed cuts to programs across virtually every agency, in addition to $1 billion in cuts from state employees.

The ratio of cuts to taxes is roughly 54% to 46%, thus relying more on cuts than taxes to balance the budget.

My Concerns:

Many of you have voiced a concern, that I share, with the governor's proposal eliminating the middle class property tax credit. Although he is also proposing an earned income tax credit to help lower income families, eliminating the $500 property tax credit would be a significant tax increase for many families and retirees. (see footnote #2)

Although spending in the first year of the budget remains flat, spending increases 2.4% in the second year of the budget. We really should be reducing the state's overall spending—or at least freezing it for both years.

I am also concerned that the governor has proposed significant new taxes:  Taxes born by families will increase 12.4% from 2010 to 2011.

Governor Malloy's budget would give municipalities a small but significant portion (5.7%) of the new taxes proposed, but with no strings attached such as requiring property tax relief.

The billion dollars of concessions from state employees will be difficult to negotiate, since it is 18.5% of what is spent on state workers and retirees. Total state employee wages are about $3.5 billion. Another $1.9 billion goes towards health benefits for active and retired employees and towards pension funding.

Next steps

The legislature is now studying the governor's proposal and holding hearings to give all Connecticut citizens—representatives of state agencies, non-profit providers, businesses, and members of the public—the opportunity to comment on the budget.

When the hearing process is completed, the legislature will develop its own budget. Ultimately, the legislature and governor will negotiate a compromise budget, which will be voted on in the house and senate.

Meanwhile, I am providing ideas—some of which you've emailed me—to the committees and leadership working on the budget.

I have sent a more detailed review of the budget out via email. If you haven't received it and would like to, contact me at Linda.Schofield@cga.ct.gov or 860-240-8585.

If you are interested in reviewing the full budget, it is available on the governor's website at http://www.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?a=11&Q=473940&malloyNav=|.

In addition, I encourage you to attend one of Governor Malloy's town hall forums to hear directly from him and to express your opinions. The nearest forum to Simsbury will be on March 21st at 7:00 p.m. at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

FOOTNOTE:

1. State spending is going down $4 million in Governor Malloy's proposed budget, which is to say it's really remaining flat in the first year. The media have reported that the spending is going up in the first year, and this is not really correct. The budget re-establishes a former program to bring in substantial new federal revenue and it makes it look like expenses go up, but in net terms they don't. It's complex to explain - so you may want to skip this, but here's how the program would work:
   
   The state would tax hospitals, nursing homes, and group homes. CT would use that tax money to raise the reimbursement rates under Medicaid to those hospitals, nursing homes, and group homes. For every dollar of this provider tax that is brought in and then paid back to the providers, the federal government would match 50 cents. Thus the state's ahead 50 cents in the end, but it raised $1.00 in tax and paid $1.00 in Medicaid payments in order to get the 50 cents. That makes it look like the state increases expenditures and increases taxes. But you can see, it really would be a net gain for the state, not a net expense.
   
   
2. The current $500 income tax credit for property taxes is available for both cars and real estate currently. It allows a deduction against your income taxes for every dollar of property taxes paid up to $500. The full deduction is available for families with income up to $100,500 and then begins to phase out, disappearing entirely at family income of $190,501.

But is this significant? Maybe not.

Last term's supermajority only mattered in overriding a gubernatorial veto. A veto override requires a two-thirds super-majority to vote yes. This is 101 votes in the House and 24 in the senate. These overrides come into play very few times, because the governor doesn't veto bills all that often. When it happens, there often isn't the support to override the veto, because some members of the super-majority are not willing to vote yes.

Now that we have a governor of the same party as the majority in the legislature, there will likely be fewer vetoes. That will not be because the governor will be willing to go along with everything the legislature wants, but rather because, being from the same party, the legislative leaders and governor are more likely to work out compromises and not take the more confrontational approach of passing a bill the governor opposes or vetoing a bill the legislature wants.

Since the super-majority issue is moot, does that mean the change in ratio has made the legislature more conservative? Not necessarily. Indeed, the Democrats are still a solid majority in both chambers and hold the leadership positions. So, the overall legislative agenda will not likely be pulled to the right.

In fact, some argue that a larger percentage of the remaining members of the Democratic majority are more liberal than the percentage before the election.

This is because the Democratic representatives most at risk of losing their seats came from more conservative, suburban districts. Democrats from urban districts—the so-called "safe" seats—are virtually unchallenged by Republicans. With fewer centrists among the majority party members, their voices will potentially be less influential within their caucus.

How this will ultimately play out is yet to be determined. Gov. Malloy has indicated that he is, in his own words, fiscally conservative.

So he may have a moderating influence over the legislature. And, as always, all sorts of coalitions of strange bed-fellows can occur, resulting in unanticipated outcomes.

So, did the balance of power change in the legislature? I'd say we don't really know yet!

Linda’s Litter Lugging Day is an annual town wide clean up that Schofield organizes to rid Simsbury of litter that has collected on roads, woods and fields over the winter months.

“Last year we had close to 200 volunteers and collected thousands of pounds of trash and recyclables,” said Schofield. “This is a great example of people working together and making a real difference in our community.”

Volunteers will meet at the town hall parking lot between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, April 9th, where they will be given a clean-up assignment, rubber gloves, trash bags, and orange safety vests. Volunteers may also sign up for a section of road to clean up in advance, if they prefer. The rain date is Saturday, April 16th at 9:00 a.m.

Paine’s has generously volunteered their services, and will place dumpsters and barrels in the town hall parking lot for all the recyclables and trash that volunteers collect. Paine will also provide a dumpster for electronic items to be recycled.

Refreshments will be donated by Fitzgerald’s.

Interested volunteers should email Linda at Linda.Schofield@cga.ct.gov or call her at her office at 860-240-8635.

However, the simple answer, while true, overlooks a complex and nuanced campaign for election within the House that can be as time consuming as a campaign for state representative.

In my time in office, there have been no contested campaigns for speaker. In both my first term and my current term, the speaker was continuing after having already been speaker the previous term. In my second term, there was only one candidate running for speaker, who had been the previous majority Leader and heir apparent.

Many folks have asked me why no one tries to unseat an incumbent speaker. Attempting to gain the support of a majority of House members requires that the candidate spend time with each member convincing them of their qualifications. So, obviously, everyone will know if a challenger is attempting to unseat a sitting speaker. Since the speaker controls most everything a challenging legislator might need or want, the speaker could easily undo any opposition.

The speaker controls committee chairmanships and assignments; office, parking, and staffing assignments; which bills get raised for votes on the House floor, and which items are included in the proposed budget. In addition, come election time, he/she decides whether a candidate is given any assistance — money or staff — with their campaign. Therefore, the Speaker wields powerful disincentives for would-be challengers!

I have experienced two races for majority leader, often used as the stepping stone to the speaker’s position. Last year there were seven people originally vying for the seat, which was vacated by Denise Merrill. The competition began about a year prior to the election. Candidates met with existing and potential new state representatives, seeking a commitment of support in the majority leader election. Candidates did a lot of work on state representative campaigns around the state to demonstrate their ability to be majority leader.

The effort to run this internal campaign, while also seeking re-election to one’s own House seat, is significant. Over the years, including this past November, some have spent time on the internal race at the expense of their race at home, and as a result lost their seats.

Although challenges to incumbent legislative leaders are rare, there have been exceptions. In the late 1980s, a group of Democratic representatives joined with the minority Republican representatives to beat the incumbent speaker, who had support from the majority of Democrats, but not from the majority of all House members.

It all sounds like palace intrigue—and it is. But these internal machinations have enormous consequences for the direction of the state, given the concentration of power in the hands of legislative leadership. Given the time demands of running both a race for a leadership position, as well as a race for one’s own district, it is easier to become a leader if you come from a “safe” district, rather than from places where local races are hotly contested. Safe districts for Democrats are typically urban districts. However, this doesn’t always hold true for candidates who are skillful at building coalitions within their party.

I was glad to answer this question and welcome other ideas or questions for columns! Feel free to contact me at Linda.Schofield@cga.ct.gov or 860.240.8585.

State Rep. Linda Schofield believes, admirably, that budget-cutting begins at home.

Pointing out that Connecticut has more legislators than California — a state with 10 times our population — the fiscally conservative Democrat from Simsbury has dared to propose slicing the 36-member Senate and the 151-seat House of Representatives in half and increasing the terms of the reduced number of lawmakers from two years to four.

That sounds like a capital idea.

At least it's a reasonable proposal with which to start a serious discussion of how to wring savings from the legislative branch — assuming that it, like taxpayers and the rest of state government, is expected to sacrifice until it hurts. It is supposed to sacrifice, right?

A token percentage cut in legislative pay, as proposed by the Republican minority, just won't do it — not at a time when the governor and lawmakers have to wrestle with projected $3.6 billion budget deficits in each of the next two fiscal years.

"The state is facing an unprecedented financial situation and we need to reduce the size of our state government, which has become too big. And the best place to start is with ourselves," says Ms. Schofield.

She thinks the public will welcome her proposal, and so do we.

Under the Schofield smaller-legislature plan, there would be an ongoing savings in legislative and staff salaries, benefits and expenses and likely savings in the amount of funds parceled out to candidates under Connecticut's voluntary system of publicly financing state elections.

But as reasonable as her proposal is, Ms. Schofield most likely will have to wait until the proverbial Twelfth of Never before her colleagues support it.

Half of them would lose their voter-endowed, taxpayer-funded jobs. And job preservation, like self-preservation, is a basic instinct in the species politicus. It's in their DNA. Most would cut off their arms before giving up influence.

Reaction has thus been frosty.

"I have not heard any consensus for a General Assembly that would be that small," was the polite reaction of Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney of New Haven. He noted that over the years, the House has been reduced from 293 members to 177 to the current 151.

If they've done it before, they can do it again. Why not place before Connecticut's voters a proposed constitutional amendment that would shrink the Senate to 18 members and the House to 75? What's the harm in asking?

Sen. Edith Prague, Democrat from Columbia, frets that senators could not do a good job representing their constituents if each had twice as many as they do now.

But it looks as if they might be slacking now. According to Ms. Schofield, Connecticut lawmakers, based on the state's population, represent fewer than half the national average number of constituents.

Goshen Republican Sen. Andrew Roraback says the answer is not to cut the legislature in half but to cut in half the time spent by lawmakers in Hartford, and prune the salaries of all legislators and statewide elected officials by 5 percent.

That's Mr. Roraback's idea of shared sacrifice?

In Depression-era Nebraska, political reformers appealed to lawmakers to put on the ballot a constitutional amendment allowing for a simpler, less expensive legislative model that would cost many of the incumbents their seats. They courageously complied, and the amendment —- which got rid of the traditional House and Senate and replaced them with one chamber — was adopted by voters statewide.

Since 1937, Nebraska has had the nation's only Unicameral. The one-house legislature — with 49 lawmakers called senators elected on a nonpartisan ballot — is efficient, effective, economical, accountable and not given to corruption.

Connecticut and other states have looked at that model before and rejected it — largely because sitting legislators don't want to put their seats at risk.

Connecticut's General Assembly and governor will soon be laboring to close a huge budget deficit in times reminiscent of the Great Depression. If this legislature's contribution to eliminating the deficit and making state government less costly is merely a small salary cut, it will have failed.

As the effects of the economic downturn persist even beyond the official end of the recession, and with a state budget deficit estimated at $3.5 billion for the 2012 fiscal year, we must sharpen our focus and expect to make some sacrifices.

Before we discuss where we can make cuts, it is important to understand how the state currently spends your tax dollars. Amazingly, just six items account for almost 70% of the budget.

1. Medicaid expenditures, excluding employee costs: 19.9% (over half of this is paid for with federal funds)
2. Aid to towns, including education and roads: 14.5%
3. Services to the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, and children in DCF: 13%
4. Debt service: 11%
5. Law enforcement, criminal courts, and prisons/corrections: 6.9%
6. Transportation infrastructure: 2.7%

The remaining part of the budget covers such things as environmental protection, motor vehicle licensing, public health protection, banking & insurance regulation, UConn and other state public colleges, and veterans’ services. Cash assistance “welfare” to needy families and adults constitutes only 1.3% of the budget.

Without adding a single program to the budget, our budget would grow next year because prices for energy, employee benefits, rents, and everything else inflate each year. Our projected revenue for the next two fiscal years is over $3 billion lower each year than what was budgeted for, meaning there is a large gap to fill.

This gap is in spite of the $3 billion in cuts made in the past few years and the raising of income taxes from 5% to 6.5% for annual income in excess of $1 million for a couple and $500,000 for an individual. Fortunately, actual revenue from income and sales taxes is recovering a little quicker than predicted.

How do we fill this gap? There are lots of ideas being discussed, but there is no magic potion.

We can cut spending, but even if we closed every prison, shut down all services to the mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and abused children, and stopped providing public health services, we would still not close the gap in the budget. If we eliminated the entire Medicaid program, which pays for the majority of nursing home and group home residents, we would close only half of the gap.

Some people talk about raising taxes, but at a time when many families and businesses are already struggling to make ends meet, increasing taxes would also have negative consequences.

Others have suggested slashing state employee benefits or laying off some state workers, but that will reduce services, reduce income tax revenue, and increase unemployment costs. Even if every state employee was laid off, we wouldn’t close the gap.

I am a strong advocate of reforming the state pension system to eliminate practices that are unsustainable and to bring benefits more in line with the private sector. However, contract law prohibits reductions in current retirees’ pensions. Changes affecting only new employees will have a negligible effect on the current gap in our budget.

As you have seen we will have to make some tough decisions, but it is important that we do not unfairly burden one segment of the population more than another. My priority is to assure an efficiently run safety net for those people truly in need, while also assuring that our economy can regain prosperity through business growth. We must not sacrifice our future in the interest of short-term goals. As we in the legislature grapple with the state budget, I will keep you informed. I welcome your thoughts about budget priorities, places and programs to cut, and ways to raise revenues.

Please feel free to email me at Linda.Schofield@cga.ct.gov.

“Connecticut has more legislators than California—a state with ten times more people than Connecticut,” said Schofield. “The state is facing an unprecedented financial situation and we need to reduce the size of our state government, which has just become too big – and the best place to start is with ourselves.”

Schofield’s proposal (House Resolution 4) would reduce the 36 member state senate and 151 member house of representatives by half. It would also increase state legislators’ terms from the current two years to four years. Since state election campaigns are now publicly financed to the tune of about $27.3 million every two years, Schofield’s proposal would reduce that amount by 75%, saving taxpayers $20.5 million.

In addition, the reduction in the number of legislators would save on not only their salaries and benefits, but also their staff. Each senator has a full-time staff-person and every four representatives share a staff-person as well. Schofield estimates savings of roughly $7.5 million from the reduction in the payroll.

Schofield noted that Connecticut has a relatively low ratio of population to state legislators, compared to other states. Connecticut currently has 18,814 residents for every legislator, compared to a national average of one legislator to 41,589 people. Only eight states have more legislators than Connecticut.

“I believe the public would welcome this proposal, not only because of the savings, but because they are tired of endless campaigning. People are always shocked at how quickly two years goes by, and they don’t enjoy the “robo-calls” and mailings that come with election season. Furthermore, four-year terms would allow state lawmakers to really focus on the business of governing our state without spending every other year working on their next election.”

We all know this means that difficult choices have to be made, and I want your input. I’ve discovered in my four years at the legislature that there’s a lot I’ve had to learn that was never explained to me as a member of the general public about the legislative process and the budget and policy choices that must be made. Members of the public should have access to such facts in order to really make informed and appropriate assessments about the situation, and to be able to give me your input based on a solid knowledge base. So, I will to use this column in the coming months to share information with you and to ask for your input on how you think the budget should be addressed.

A lot of messages I get about the state budget seem to be in conflict. As you would expect, different people hold different opinions. But often there are conflicting messages even from the same person. For example, many indicate they want budget cuts, but no reductions in services.

We would all like to close the budget gap by simply improving efficiency and quality, and there is certainly opportunity to do both. But, seeing first hand the efforts the agencies already make to achieve these efficiencies and seeing their real-world limitations, I have come to learn that such efficiencies will never be adequate to close an 18 percent budget gap. So, state policymakers, like me, need specific suggestions of what folks would be willing to see cut, in spite of knowing the consequences of the reduced services.

Your input about revenue would also be helpful. For example, there is widespread support for Sunday liquor sales, which will result in a modest revenue increase to the state because of increased sales tax collections on the additional volume of liquor sold. This sort of tax “increase” is more acceptable than others. Similarly, many support elimination of various current exemptions from sales taxes.

I want to know which taxes you think we should leave unchanged and which you would be willing to apply more widely or to increase, and under what circumstances. For example, are you willing to see taxes increase in order to avoid a cut in state education funding? I have noted with interest that Simsbury residents have voted overwhelmingly in the past two budget referenda for property tax increases over cuts in the school budget, because the consequences of such cuts are well-understood and demonstrably unacceptable to the majority.

I believe we hold conflicting and mathematically impossible beliefs because news media and politicians alike have for years spread the myth that we can have more and pay less. Few politicians want to be the bearers of bad news, or worse to take actions that the voting public dislikes in the short run, even if it is in the long-term best interest of the economy or country. So, we’ve had many years of being given all the services people have asked for, while having the bill pushed off onto the shoulders of future unknown “others.”  Unfortunately the bill has come due and we have to pay for what we get and remember that we get what we pay for.

I want to understand and represent my constituents accurately, and your specific input helps me do that. In future columns I want to share with you things that I learned only after I got in office, so that you’ll also understand the inner workings of legislature and the budget challenges facing us. I want to write topics of interest to you, so I’m inviting you to contact me with topics or questions you’d like me to address.

Hopefully, this will assure that my future columns will be of interest to you, and will engender informed and productive discussions of how our state government can further the interests of our residents in the long run.

I look forward to your input and thoughts. As always, you can contact me at Linda.Schofield@cga.ct.gov. Or call me at 860-240-8585.

Schofield, who was re-elected in November by one of the largest margins of victory in any of the 2010 competitive races, noted she is ready to get to work and tackle the state budget immediately.

“There is a lot of work to be done this year, because of the state’s budget problems. But I am hopeful that Governor Malloy and the legislature will work together in a more productive and collaborative process than we had seen with the prior administration,” said Schofield. “I am committed, as I have been in previous years, to rein in state spending and borrowing while maintaining an efficiently run safety net for those people truly in need.”

Schofield said she has been appointed by Speaker of the House Christopher G. Donovan (D-Meriden) to continue serving as vice chair of the state legislature’s Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee during the upcoming 2011 legislative session.

“This is a busy post with all of the new appointments being made by Governor Malloy,” said Schofield. “It will be a great opportunity for me to meet one-on-one with all of the incoming commissioners and begin to develop a working relationship with them.”

The committee reviews and conducts hearings on executive & legislative nominations recommended by the governor and the legislative leadership. The Simsbury lawmaker will also serve once again on the Appropriations, and Insurance and Real Estate Committees.

The entire membership of the state legislature serves two-year terms. This year’s legislative session ends on June 8.