Friday, March 19, 2010
By Mary E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor

As state lawmakers hunt for more revenue sources to close a $1.2 billion deficit, the public has some advice of its own: No keno, no highway tolls, but sell liquor on Sundays.

That’s the conclusion of a new Quinnipiac Poll, which also took voters’ pulse on the fall election, with Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz continuing to lead in the attorney general’s race, and Greenwich millionaires Republican Tom Foley and Democrat Ned Lamont still in front for governor.

But the largest portion of the electorate remains undecided on candidates, two months before the parties’ nominating conventions and five months before primaries.

“The Connecticut electorate just hasn’t focused on this campaign yet,” said Gary Rose, professor of politics at Sacred Heart University. “It doesn’t surprise me.”

Bysiewicz does not appear to have gotten much fallout over her court battle to determine if she is qualified for attorney general or from complaints that she is using a state-generated list of citizen contacts for political purposes.

By a 70-27 percent margin, polled voters oppose keno gambling in restaurants, bars and convenience stores. Gov. M. Jodi Rell suggested the game as a revenue source the state could borrow against.

One legislative committee has let the deadline to act on keno lapse over fears that the gambling game would jeopardize slot machine revenues generated annually through a compact with two American Indian casinos.

An attorney for Foxwoods Resort Casino has already said the compact is dead if keno is adopted. Keno is expected to generate $60 million annually. The state plan is to borrow $400 million against future keno revenues.

A public hearing on keno and other proposed revisions to the 2011 budget will be held at 10 a.m. Monday at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

The governor’s job approval is down from a high of 83 percent in January 2005 to 59 percent this month, while only 28 percent approve of the job being done by legislators. Forty percent of voters are satisfied with the way things are going in the state, with 58 percent dissatisfied.

The public is opposed to reinstating highway tolls at state lines, by 56 to 40 percent, while it is in favor of allowing Sunday alcohol sales in liquor stores by 62 to 33 percent. The tolls issue has been kicked forward for more study, and the liquor bill died in committee.

For the election, 44 percent of the Democrats polled are undecided, while Lamont gets 28 percent to former Stamford Mayor Dannel P. Malloy’s 18 percent, with Simsbury First Selectwoman Mary Glassman coming in with 4 percent.

Bysiewicz leads among the Democrats for attorney general with 54 percent, compared with former state Sen. George Jepsen’s 10 percent, and the rest of the candidates at 2 percent or less. Still, 31 percent remain undecided in this race.

The Republicans favor Foley for governor with 30 percent, to 4 percent for Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, and 50 percent undecided.

The attorney general race among Republicans had 66 percent of respondents undecided, with 13 percent for state Sen. Andrew Roraback of Goshen, 9 percent for Martha Dean, who only entered the race two weeks ago, and 8 percent for John Pavia.

The poll was taken March 9-15 and surveyed 1,451 registered state voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. The survey includes 549 Democrats, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percent, and 387 Republicans, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Contact Mary E. O’Leary at 203-789-5731 or moleary@newhavenregister.com.

© 2010 nhregister.com, a Journal Register Property

The Hartford Courant
March 18, 2010

Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele on Wednesday called for deep spending cuts that would include a four-year hiring freeze, merging state agencies, capping pensions and eliminating bonus payments for state employees.

Fedele, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, said he would propose no tax increases if elected in November. And if the Republicans win majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate for the first time since 1986, he said, he would pledge to have no new taxes at all.

“Raising taxes is the wrong solution — wrong a year ago and wrong today,” Fedele told reporters at the state Capitol complex.

The state currently is paying more than $1.2 billion annually in pension benefits to more than 42,000 retirees, an amount Fedele said was unsustainable.

In addition, the state pension fund is underfunded by $9.3 billion, which he called “the equivalent of a ticking time bomb” for the state.

“Quite simply, state employees should not enjoy benefits that far exceed those available to the average working person in our state,” Fedele said. He said all new state employees should be enrolled in a 401(k)-style plan that is common in the private sector.

Fedele also called for eliminating state employee “longevity payments,” essentially bonuses paid to those who have more than 10 years with the state. The bonuses — as well as overtime — should not be used for calculations in state-employee pensions, he said.

Matthew O’Connor, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Employees Association, SEIU Local 2001, said, “It is surprising that the lieutenant governor doesn’t understand our current pension plan. But his comments are not so surprising, considering where he is in the polls. It’s clear that what the lieutenant governor would rather do is pit public-sector workers against private-sector workers.”

Fedele was in second place among Republicans in a January Quinnipiac University poll. In first was former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, a Greenwich millionaire who has been running TV commercials to raise his name recognition. A new poll was scheduled to be released this morning.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

This Saturday is your chance to get answers to the really tough questions from Connecticut’s gubernatorial candidates.

For the first time in decades, we’ll be electing a newcomer to the state’s top office. SEBAC, our coalition of state employee unions, is hosting a forum with the candidates for governor on Saturday, March 20 in West Hartford.

All of the potential candidates — both Democratic and Republican — have been invited to speak to union members and answer our questions. The following candidates have agreed to attend:

Ned Lamont - Democrat
Rudy Marconi - Democrat
Dannel Malloy - Democrat
Juan Figueroa - Democrat
Tom Marsh - Republican

Turn-out for the event is expected to be high. If you haven’t already done so, contact your union’s representative to RSVP and get additional details on this important event.

This is your opportunity to let the candidates know that you care about their positions on issues like rebuilding Connecticut’s economy, protecting the vital services we provide, and providing a better future for our children and grandchildren. Let’s ensure that we end up with a partner in the Governor’s Office in 2010.

Look forward to seeing you at the forum on Saturday!

March 17, 2010

Connecticut should close corporate tax loopholes and raise taxes on the wealthy and consumers of unhealthy products to close the state budget deficit while preserving services that help families recover from the recession, a coalition of nonprofits, workers and advocates said Wednesday.

The coalition — Better for Choices for Connecticut — outlined at its news conference a report detailing what it says are options state budget officials and policymakers should consider to modernize  its revenue system while closing its massive budget deficit.

“We can balance the budget without relying solely on spending cuts that damage the state’s economic future and harm families,” Jamey Bell, executive director of Connecticut Voices for Children, said in a group statement.

Among the group’s options:

·Close corporate tax loopholes that benefit multi-state companies over local companies;

· Evaluate the $5 billion in tax breaks in state tax laws and reduce or eliminate unproductive tax breaks;

· Increase income taxes for those who can best afford it, the state’s wealthy residents;

· Delay reductions in the gift and estate tax, a tax that affects only a handful of the state’s wealthiest residents;

· Either increase the sales tax or modernize it to cover services rather than only goods;

· Raise taxes on unhealthy products such as soda;

· Restore the scheduled Petroleum Gross Earnings Tax rate increase; and

· Tax excess profits of electricity generators.

“Coming to grips with the projected deficit requires both reductions in expenditures and increases in revenue,” said William Cibes, who directed state budget matters under Gov. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.  “It’s not a question of if  revenues will be raised, but which revenues will be raised.”

The report, “Revenue Solutions for FY 2011,” is available on the Better Choices for Connecticut website at www.betterchoicesforCT.org.

©2010 New England Business Media

Keith M. Phaneuf
March 16, 2010

Anticipating a huge crash in state funding, municipal leaders urged legislators Monday to expand their ability to levy taxes and fees, particularly through a regional sales tax surcharge.

But while members of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee agreed communities need new revenue sources, lawmakers from both parties expressed fears that Connecticut could be left with a patchwork tax system that helps one region while harming another.

“The next few years are going to look pretty bleak for all of us,” East Hartford Mayor Melody Currey said, adding she has had to slash programs and lay off town workers for two years now, and fears things are about to get worse. “It’s the most unpleasant part of the job.”

“Connecticut tax policy continues to encourage the highest property tax burden in America,” New Haven Mayor John DeStefano said. “This shift to property taxes has fallen hardest on central cities where most of the state’s jobs are, and harms the ability of our cities to compete economically.”

Currey and DeStefano joined Cheshire Town Manager Michael A. Milone in backing bills to create new, regional sales and hotel taxes, to continue a temporary increase in the local real estate conveyance tax, and to give communities broad powers to increase local fees.

Municipal leaderss cited the $3.9 billion deficit legislative analysts are projecting for the 2011-12 fiscal year, a gap nearly one-and-a-half times the size of the $2.7 billion in grants state government currently provides cities and towns. The single largest municipal grant, the Education Cost Sharing program, is being propped up by $271 million in annual, emergency federal stimulus aid, which expires after 2010-11.

Town officials estimate an extra $550 million to $600 million could be raised statewide to offset the impending crash by allowing communities to levy an extra 1 percent on the existing 6 percent state sales tax, Currey said. The proposal before the finance committee would require any such changes to occur at the regional level, with decisions made by elected officials serving on regional planning agencies.

Similarly, a second option backed by town leaders Monday would allow regional groups to establish a tax on hotel stays, with the funds raised also going to support municipal budgets within the region.

But Reps. Patricia M. Widlitz, D-Guilford, and Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, cautioned that could create an uneven tax landscape that could driven consumers away from some regions.

And with cities already struggling with the highest poverty rates and property tax burdens in Connecticut, might they also be the most tempted to seek higher sales and hotel taxes as well? Widlitz asked. “I would think that would hurt the cities even more” in terms of attracting consumers and businesses, she said. “It would make them even less competitive.”

The looming budget crisis is so severe, and the prospect of declining town aid so strong, there probably wouldn’t be many regions holding off on sales or hotel tax hikes, Currey responded. “I can’t foresee anyone having that opportunity and turning it down,” she said, “because frankly, we are so desperate for cash.”

Though proposals for regional taxing authority are nothing new at the Capitol, and typically never get to the House or Senate floor for a vote, Rep. Cameron C. Staples, D-New Haven, co-chairman of the committee, said they have a better chance in this time of budget crisis than ever before.

Staples added that a statewide tax hike, such as a sales tax surcharge, along with a pledge to devote all extra proceeds to municipal grants, might garner more legislative support than a region-by-region approach.

But town leaders still pressed for the regional option, adding that state government’s track record on pledges of town aid is poor. “Promises do get broken during tough fiscal times,” Milone said.

Though most municipal revenue comes either from state aid or from local property taxes, cities and towns are able to levy a 0.25 percent tax, or $25 for every $1,000, on real estate sales.

That tax rate is supposed to drop to $11 per $1,000 on July 1, but towns are backing a bill to make the increase permanent, estimating it could provide between $30 million and $40 million next fiscal year.

Michael Casey of Bristol, spokesman for the Connecticut Association of Realtors, urged the finance committee to allow the higher rate to expire, adding that municipal governments aren’t the only ones struggling in this economy.

“It increases a tax on a fragile housing market at the worst possible time,” he said. “Yes, towns and municipal governments are facing a huge challenge deciding what programs and services to fund. Still, this pales into insignificance compared to the trials and tribulations of home sellers.”

The finance committee has until April 6 to act on bills it raised this legislative session.

©Copyright 2010 The Connecticut News Project

March 15, 2010

Besides balancing the budget, passing legislation to retain and create jobs is the most important item on the General Assembly’s agenda this session.

About 101,000 people have lost their jobs in Connecticut since the recession began in 2008. The state’s unemployment rate, although below the national average, is an unhealthy 9 percent. Tax revenue is in steep decline.

State government must lend a helping hand.

A number of good proposals are winding through the legislative maze. So far, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the Democrats who control the legislature agree in principle, if not on every detail, on several initiatives. Bipartisan cooperation on jobs creation is essential if quick and effective action is to be taken. Last year’s protracted budget mess is an ugly reminder of what happens when disagreement prevails.

Senate Bill 1 could be a showcase for bipartisan cooperation if a financing dispute can be worked out. The bill, pushed by Democrats, focuses on helping businesses with fewer than 50 employees stabilize and hopefully add to their payroll.

Credit is tight, so the bill establishes a revolving loan fund of $20 million for operating or capital expenses. Mrs. Rell has proposed a much bigger fund of $100 million. Both sides would cancel unused bond authorizations and float new bonds to fill the fund. They just need to agree on how big the loan fund should be.

Democrats would also suspend the annual business entity tax of $250 for two years for mom-and-pop shops with net incomes of $50,000 or less, in the hope that owners might add a few work hours for employees or buy something the business needs. Sponsors believe the tax suspension would send a signal that Connecticut is friendly to small business.

Democrats would make up the $12 million in revenue loss by imposing an income tax surcharge on employees awarded bonuses of more than $1 million from banks that received federal TARP funding. Republicans favor the suspension of the business entity tax; actually, they’d like to eliminate it permanently for all businesses, but Republicans would pay for it by cutting spending. There’s poetic justice in the TARP surcharge.

A third major component of the Democrats’ bill — one with which Mrs. Rell agrees in principle — is reorganization of the state’s economic development-related agencies to cut red tape and make it easier for businesses to get what they need from the state, such as permits or loans.

This bill is one part of the solution to joblessness in Connecticut. Democrats and Republicans should quickly settle their few differences and get it on the books.

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

by Alexandra Dufresne And Jamey Bell
Mar 14, 2010 4:25am

Punishing students with out-of-school suspensions for wearing hats or buying candy makes little sense, either as effective discipline or as a means of improving educational outcomes for children. But Connecticut students have been suspended from school for such offenses. In fact, a majority of the suspensions in Connecticut schools during the 2007/2008 school year were for “school policy violations,” such as truancy or showing disrespect. So students who skip school are often “rewarded” by getting a mandatory day of “vacation” from school.

Nearly all policy makers agree that suspensions should be limited to situations in which they are necessary. That’s why, in response to well-documented problems with inappropriate uses of suspensions in Connecticut, a law to reform their use was approved in 2007 with strong bipartisan support. Governor Rell was unequivocal when she signed the law: “Students should be removed from the school setting only under the most exceptional circumstances…Keeping children out of school is a direct line to delinquent behavior…It’s a recipe for failure.”

Yet state lawmakers are now under pressure to support a bill to delay implementation of this common sense law for a third time. Why the opposition to carrying out a common sense reform? These calls for further delays are often based on a misunderstanding of the law and its impact on schools.

Connecticut’s suspension law limits out-of-school suspensions to situations where they are necessary to protect students or property or prevent disruptions to the educational process. School administrators have full discretion to determine when this threshold is met.

Some town officials argue that the law requires schools to create new in-school suspension programs for children who would otherwise be sent home, requiring additional staff and often additional space. But Connecticut’s suspension law does not require in-school suspensions; indeed, schools can be in complete compliance without any in-school suspension programming whatsoever. Schools remain free to employ a wide range of alternative low-cost disciplinary strategies, such as detention, withdrawal of privileges, parent meetings, peer mediation, counseling, referral to services, and positive reinforcement for good behavior. And when a child’s behavior is so disruptive or dangerous that it can’t be dealt with in school, local administrators retain their ability to suspend that student.

Many schools in Connecticut are already doing an excellent job of promoting student discipline while keeping children in school, often through a range of creative, common sense, and age-appropriate interventions. Prompt implementation of the law will encourage these districts to continue their existing disciplinary policies while encouraging other districts to adopt best practices that improve discipline and achievement.

Some town officials also argue that it is unfair for the state to impose a “mandate” on towns without fully funding it. However, this law is not unfunded. It was passed in 2007, when the Governor and the legislature enacted unprecedented increases in state funding for education.  The state is not asking local school districts to educate children who are not “theirs.” Schools receive full funding for students they suspend. The state is simply saying that districts may not deny educational privileges to students in their schools – and for whom they receive state money, unless excluding such children is – in the opinion of school administrators – necessary. This is entirely fitting.

The financial plight of towns is so severe that legislators understandably want to help out and show that they understand. Legislative proposals to delay the suspension law are intended to respond to this concern. But at what cost?

Extensive research demonstrates that excluding children from school contributes to juvenile delinquency, increased dropout rates, and weakened academic performance. In 2005-2006 and again in 2006-2007, over 250,000 school days were lost to out-of-school suspensions. Kindergartners in Connecticut lost 2,000 days to school discipline in 2005-2006 alone.

Punishing children by denying them educational opportunity is a waste of human capital that we cannot afford in the best of times, much less in a recession. If cities and towns are serious about promoting economic growth and opportunity, they must support policies that give our children a shot at being competitive with children in Europe and Asia. Connecticut’s children belong in school.

Alexandra Dufresne, J.D. is a Senior Policy Fellow with Connecticut Voices for Children and co-author of the report, “Missing Out: Suspending Students from Connecticut Schools” (August 2008). Jamey Bell, J.D. is the Executive Director of Connecticut Voices for Children.

© 2005–2010 CTNewsJunkie

By ARIELLE LEVIN BECKER
The Hartford Courant
11:37 AM EST, March 13, 2010

MIDDLETOWN — Joshua Kerwin dreads the dentist so much that he went more than a decade without seeing one, even as his teeth decayed and ached.

But on Friday, he waited overnight to get a wisdom tooth taken out. He does not have dental insurance, and he can’t afford all the dental work he needs.

Pictures: Free Dental Health Clinic In Middletown

So Kerwin, 31, took a day off from work, packed a cooler, got a ride from a friend and, at 2:30 a.m., arrived at the Aetna campus in Middletown. There, a few hours later, the Connecticut Mission of Mercy free dental clinic was set to begin.

Inside, rows of dental chairs lined floors that once held cubicles, 40,000 square feet of corporate office space now devoted, for two days, to the underserved. More than 1,600 volunteers were expected, offering oral surgery, fillings, root canals, child care, even some company in navigating the walk from one station to the next.

Organizers hoped to treat 1,000 patients Friday and 1,000 more today, about as many as the clinic could handle.

The clinic was scheduled to open at 8 a.m., but nearly an hour before that, the line was shut down. More than 1,000 people had already shown up.

Some arrived close to midnight. Security guards blocked the entrances to the Aetna campus, so prospective patients lined up their cars along the road outside and waited through the night. Tammy Castonguay arrived from Manchester at 1:15 a.m. and found 32 cars ahead of her.

It was sad, but not surprising, said Dr. Bruce Tandy, president of the Connecticut State Dental Association. Statewide, an estimated 1 million people do not have access to adequate dental care. Medicare doesn’t cover dental work, and few dentists will treat adult patients on Medicaid because it pays so little.

The bad economy has stripped people of jobs and benefits, although Tandy said the unmet need is sizable even without a recession.

And he worries it will get worse. Gov. M. Jodi Rell has proposed cutting all non-emergency dental coverage for adults in Medicaid and state administered general assistance as a way to reduce the budget deficit.

That could mean even more people at free clinics like this one — not the trend organizers were aiming for.

“As proud as we are to do this project, the underlying message is we hope someday we don’t need this,” said Dr. Laurence Levy, a Middletown dentist who helped plan the clinic.

At last year’s Mission of Mercy in New Haven, volunteers treated nearly 1,900 people. The year before, 1,500 patients were treated in Tolland.

“This clinic is just a Band-Aid,” Levy said. “There’s no way we can meet the demand.”

But Friday, they did what they could. Those who made it inside were grateful.

“This is amazing. Thank you so much. My husband’s out of work,” Castonguay told Dr. Sarita Arteaga and dental hygienist Jeena Kuttiyara as she eased into her chair — their first patient of the morning.

One of her back teeth had split. But money had been tight since Castonguay’s husband tore his rotator cuff at work.

“There’s just no money for teeth,” she explained. Her husband was in another section, getting a filling.

Castonguay, 42, had taken the day off from her job as an office assistant. She packed lawn chairs and blankets in case they had to wait outside, and a glow-in-the-dark crochet hook in case there was no light.

Despite a night without sleep, Castonguay remained cheery through the procedure, even with dental instruments crowded into her mouth. When they were out, she smiled — as much as she could with numb mouth and gauze peeking out from her lips.

The attitude didn’t surprise Arteaga, a professor at the UConn School of Dental Medicine. She had seen it before from patients at the previous Missions of Mercy.

“They’re so appreciative,” she said. “They’re so relieved.”

In the next chair, Elizabeth Dolan and Tim Holzhauer, third-year dental students at UConn, tended to Kerwin.

A couple months earlier, the pain in his teeth got so bad Kerwin finally went to a dentist. Since then, he’d been back several times for repairs. He estimated that the tooth Dolan and Holzhauer were tackling was his 10th to be removed.

“It’s very expensive when you don’t have insurance,” said Kerwin, who manages a taxi company and lives in Manchester. His dentist, who was volunteering Friday, recommended the clinic.

When the first two Novocain shots didn’t fully numb his mouth, Kerwin wondered if he was building a tolerance.

“Sorry,” he said.

You’ve been here since 2:30, the dental students assured him. We can wait.

The next shot did the trick, and soon after, his tooth was out.

Dolan and Holzhauer’s next patient, Robb Kudra, 55, of Ashford, also got a tooth out. He had gone 20 to 30 years with only sporadic dental care, despite pain on and off in his teeth. He gets his health coverage from the Department of Veterans Affairs and it doesn’t give him dental coverage, he said.

Since he left the military, Kudra worked construction, drove trucks and did design engineering, but he isn’t working at the moment. “The market stinks right now,” he said.

As he prepared for the extraction, he saw his neighbor walk by, led by a volunteer to a nearby chair.

When the extraction was done, Holzhauer advised Kudra on what to take for pain and Dolan reviewed his X-ray. One tooth could be saved, with some work, or it could be extracted that day, Dolan said. Kudra said he figured he should try to save it.

“Do you have someone to see it for you?” Dolan asked.

“Not really,” Kudra said.

“No,” he added a few seconds later. “Not really is code for hell, no.”

Organizers already are planning next year’s Mission of Mercy. For many people at this year’s clinic, that might be their next chance for dental care, Levy said.

“People have toothaches. They’re in pain,” he said. “They have nowhere to go.”

Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant

Keith M. Phaneuf
March 12, 2010

Minority Republicans in the state House of Representatives called Thursday for the cancellation of tens of millions of dollars in bonuses due next month to senior state employees.

House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, said the legislature and Gov. M. Jodi Rell should immediately repeal the law giving longevity bonuses to employees with 10 years or more on the job.

And though state government can’t unilaterally cancel such bonuses for unionized state employees, Cafero added, Rell should try to negotiate a deal with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition to remove them.

“It’s something we cannot afford to do and it needs to be eliminated,” he said, calling the annual bonuses that range from $2,500 to $26,000 a “classic example” of an expense that needs to be cut immediately. “The clock is ticking.”

This fiscal year’s $18.64 billion budget is running $518.4 million in the red, and the nonpartisan legislative Office of Fiscal Analysis is projecting shortfalls of $726 million and $3.88 billion for 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.

The longevity pay system rewards workers with bonuses ranging from just under 1 percent of annual pay to 3.5 percent for workers with 25 years or more of seniority. The bonuses are paid in equal installments in October and April.

Bonuses last year totaled $43 million. According to the House Republican Caucus, about $14 million of those funds went to roughly 35,000 unionized workers. The remaining $28 million went to nearly 4,000 non-union personnel. Despite their much smaller numbers, the non-union employees receive the bulk of the bonus dollars because many hold upper-level management posts with larger salaries.

Rell proposed legislation last year that would have eliminated the longevity pay system for all new state employees and for all non-union personnel that had not yet reached their 10-year anniversary mark. The Democrat-controlled General Assembly did not act on the Republican governor’s bill.

Cafero said his caucus is not trying to make senior state workers scapegoats for the state’s fiscal crisis. But he noted that the governor’s most recent deficit-mitigation plan includes a $45 million cut to town aid and restoration of the gross revenues tax on hospitals. “Before we do things like that, isn’t this one of the things we should take care first?” he said.

Rell’s press office cited the governor’s 2009 proposal in a written statement but declined to comment on whether she would seek longevity pay concessions from state employee unions.

The governor has said she hopes to reopen talks with unions about wage- and benefit-concessions, similar to those negotiated in 2009. Labor leaders, though, have said they are interested in discussing new proposals to make government more cost-efficient, but not in further reductions in workers’ compensation or benefits.

“This discussion seems to be missing the point,” SEBAC and Connecticut State Employees Association spokesman Matt O’Connor said.

One of the unions’ most frequent proposals, he added, calls for reductions to an excessive number of top level managers in the Executive Branch. “We keep asking the question about the number of managers,” he said. “That’s the real problem that we think needs to be addressed.”

House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, didn’t comment on the prospects of an across-the-board suspension of longevity pay for all staff, but issued a brief statement regarding manager’s pay.

“We asked the Governor to find $22.5 million in management reductions in the biennial budget,” Donovan said. “The longevity payments to management employees would seem to be a good place to find some of those savings.”

©Copyright 2010 The Connecticut News Project

Gov. M. Jodi Rell came under fire from within her own party Wednesday when a top Republican on the Appropriations Committee accused her of pursuing minimal cuts from unionized state employees’ salaries in her latest bid to reduce the budget deficit.

Rell’s plan should call for greater sacrifice by state workers “if the governor really wanted to make a statement that she recognizes” the fiscal crisis, said Rep. Craig A. Miner of Litchfield, ranking House Republican on the committee.

During an exchange with Rell’s budget director during a hearing on the $518.4 million deficit plaguing this year’s $18.64 billion budget, Miner also objected to tens of millions of dollars worth of proposed cuts aimed at private, nonprofit social service agencies and other care providers.

“The reality of this is that we’ve chosen sides,” Miner told Office of Policy and Management Secretary Robert L. Genuario. “It seems we’ve put all of our eggs in the public-service sector.”

The Litchfield lawmaker’s complaint came one day after 15 moderate Democratic legislators shook up their own leadership through a letter urging them to reconsider Rell’s plan or to find similar options that could close the deficit without resorting to the long-term financing employed last year.

Miner insisted Rell’s plan should have targeted much of the $170 million set aside for raises this fiscal year and next in a salary reserve account. The changes Rell proposed for state workers–the loss of one paid holiday and a modest change in workers’ compensation rules–are worth just over $3.4 million per year.

The administration could neither reduce contractually-mandated raises nor change holiday compensation or workers’ compensation rules without union approval.

Rell’s office and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition have been involved in infrequent talks since Jan. 28 over new options for reducing labor costs. But while the governor has said she would like to see more wage- and benefit-givebacks, union leaders have said that after agreeing to those types of concessions last year, their focus now is on finding savings through increased efficiency.

The two sides are continuing to negotiate, and while Genuario told Miner that the discussions haven’t been limited to the proposals outlined in the latest deficit-reduction plan, the budget director said it would be “irresponsible” to count on the level of savings Miner suggested. “I can’t cause it to happen,” Genuario added. “You can’t cause it to happen.”

But the committee’s other ranking Republican, Sen. Daniel Debicella of Shelton, said afterward that Miner’s complaint is valid, and that skepticism about unions accepting further wage and benefit concessions shouldn’t stop the administration from calling publicly for them. “If we’re going to eliminate this deficit, especially if we’re going to do it with spending reductions, we’re going to need them everywhere,” he said. “We should continue to propose them and we should continue to fight for them.”

The legislature ratified a concession package in May 2009 following three months of talks between the administration and SEBAC.

That package provided just over $700 million in total savings, including $71.8 million in 2008-09, and about $315 million annually both this fiscal year and next, according to the legislature’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis. The total concessions have been called too modest by some legislators who also note 30 percent of the anticipated savings didn’t come from the workers, but rather from a retirement incentive program - a perk for senior employees but nonetheless a cost-saving measure that couldn’t have been offered without union approval.

The 2009 deal features several components that affect about 90 percent or the roughly 50,000 unionized employees in state government, who must:

• Forfeit one of two raises most employees receive - a cost-of-living adjustment and a step increase designed to recognize longevity - both this fiscal year and next.
• Take seven unpaid days off by the end of 2010-11.
• Pay an additional $350 annually in health insurance premiums.
• Increase co-payments for prescription drugs from $3 for generic and $6 for name brand to $5 and $10, respectively.
• The deal also requires new employees and existing ones with less than five years of experience to contribute 3 percent of their annual salaries to help fund their retirement health benefits.

In exchange for these concessions, all but two bargaining units are exempted from layoffs through the end of next fiscal year. The exceptions are unions representing about 5,200 prison guards and other prison staff and about 600 of their Department of Correction supervisors. That’s because these two bargaining units didn’t agree to cancel raises or take unpaid days off.

SEBAC spokesman Larry Dorman said Wednesday that Miner appears to have forgotten the sacrifices state employees already have made, adding the challenge now should be to improve efficiency, not to cut pay or benefits for employees in a sluggish economy.

“What’s fundamentally unfair is that the recession is over for the CEOs and Wall Street traders who tanked the economy in the first place - but it’s not over for Connecticut’s struggling working families,” Dorman said. “It’s time to move on to fundamental long-term solutions.”

©Copyright 2010 The Connecticut News Project