This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Spring Cleaning in the 'House'

A trio of bills looks to stop sweeping government accountability under the rug.

Legislators might find they can take the procedural out of the political, but they can’t take the political out of procedural.

A trio of proposed bills — SB 229, HB 5148, SB 448 — could restore accountability to Connecticut’s taxpayers as well as reclaim legislative authority that has lain dormant for too long, according to several lawmakers. Taken separately, each bill wouldn’t change much, but together they could reframe the way the Connecticut General Assembly does business.

The first, SB 229, requires the General Assembly to vote on all state employee collective bargaining agreements. The GA has the right, but hasn’t exercised it in several years. That means contracts go into effect by default.

Find out what's happening in Orangewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“We need to vote on this. You have the governor and the GOP caucus wanting it,” said state Rep. Gail Lavielle who represents Wilton and Norwalk in the 143rd House District. “Constituents should know why legislators vote for or against something. You’re supposed to be advocating for what your constituents want. If you think it serves your constituents you should be able to vote for the contract and say why.

Benjamin Barnes, secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, agreed.

Find out what's happening in Orangewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Earlier this month, Barnes told the Appropriations Committee that SB 229 falls in line with the Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s proposal to “require that all collective bargaining agreements or awards for state employees require explicit approval or rejection by the legislature.”

Sharon M. Palmer of the American Federation of Teachers Connecticut opposes SB 229 saying they prefer to keep this bill in the realm of the governor.

Passage of the bill, which Lavielle co-sponsored, might make lawmakers think twice before allowing taxpayer money to pay for “union activities performed on state time, or continue to pay tens of millions of dollars each year in longevity bonuses.”

“It’s our responsibility to exercise our rights and I would support that bill,” said state Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, a Democrat who represents Westport in the 136th House District.

The second, HB 5148, would redefine the terms of the state’s spending cap. A statutory spending cap already exists but it’s seldom observed.

“What I find amazing is that they ignore it. And if they can ignore that, what is a Constitution for?” Lavielle said. “It’s really about government accountability.”

HB 5148 mandates the GA implement the cap as required to by the 28th constitutional amendment, which voters passed by a 4-to-1 margin 19 years ago. It was intended to calm angry citizens about the newly enacted state income tax.

The cap requires spending increases stay in line with the annual growth of personal income. But if the governor declares a fiscal emergency it can be circumvented. The legislature can then spend in excess of the cap if it has a 60 percent vote in both chambers.

A bill related to the spending cap bill comes up almost every year and every year reasons are given for not doing it, Lavielle said. But this year there are 17 different bills relating to a spending cap – even one from a Democratic Senator, she said.

However, to implement the cap, both chambers must define its terms.

“I’m not as attune to the bill as I would like to be, but the government should spend within its means, so in principle I agree with its sentiments,” said Steinberg.

Yet, earlier this month representatives from Connecticut Working Families said the proposed cap unfairly targets working and poor families.

“Folks like to talk these days about trimming budgets and cutting all the waste in government, but rarely do folks have any real ideas about what to cut,” said Lindsay Farrell, organizing director for CWF. “And how do we pay for these essentials? Tax those who can most afford it. The wealthiest households have simply not been contributing their fair share for the past several years, and we need to catch them up.”

Joachim Hero, a senior policy fellow at The Connecticut Voices for Children said legislators must address these flaws with implementation of the cap. One, it said the cap “bears little relation to actual growth in the state’s economy.” Two, it created “a disincentive for Connecticut to pursue federal funds.” And three, “it resulted in reduced accountability because the state has employed certain budgetary practices to avoid the cap – such as borrowing for operating costs.”

However, the state can’t implement the cap soon enough, said Peter M. Gioia, vice president and economist for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, which represents about 10,000 firms, or 700,000 employees in the state.

“CBIA reminds the committee that spending reforms passed in 1991. Businesses trust in state government is closely linked to the state government promise to keep spending in check to the growth in personal income,” Gioia said in written testimony.

Lastly, SB 448, also co-sponsored by Lavielle, would require the State Treasurer to sit on the State Employees Retirement Commission. It would also stipulate the commission report annually to the GA about the retirement system’s fiscal health. Having the treasurer participate would simply ensure “a higher level of accountability.”

CBIA supports this bill as it offers a “more realistic review regarding rates of return and other financial aspects of the state employee retirement system,” Gioia said.

Passing this trifecta should be a no-brainer, Lavielle said.

“I fail to see how any of these things are controversial,” Lavielle said. “They don’t cost money.”

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?