An excellent CT News Junkie article on Speaker Amann’s decision to stop soliciting contributions from lobbyists included this:
State Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, said he applauds Amann’s decision, but he thinks the only way the legislature can address this issue is with a full-time legislature.He said as long as there’s a need for legislators to find additional income elsewhere there’s going to continue to be conflicts. At the moment he estimated there were at least 60 legislators with possible conflicts of interest, meaning they’re voting on things that could potentially benefit their employers.
[...]
Caruso said the pros and cons of a full-time legislature, at the very least, should be studied. Amann said he doesn’t support a full-time legislature because it steals from the diversity of talent. He said the public is already upset about high utility rates and mortgages and that they would revolt against having to pay wages for professional politicians, which is what a full-time legislature would create. (Stuart)
Read the full article for more information about legislators who have potential conflicts of interest because of their employment situations.
Caruso is right. A full-time legislature with decent pay for legislators would solve the problem–at least, it would solve this aspect of the problem. There is also a strong argument to be made for at least extending the length of the current session, or perhaps adding a fall session to the calendar. Every year, it seems like there is either an issue that needs addressing (like energy, campaign finance reform, etc.) that didn’t get addressed during the regular session, or the budget doesn’t get done on time.
I’ve also often said that our legislators need to be paid more, to open up the legislature to many different kinds of people from all walks of life. Amann doesn’t seem to realize–we already have professional politicians, but they are mostly all from a class of people who can afford to be.
The argument against it would be that we’d get a lot more crazy stuff out of the General Assembly, and that taxpayers would have to shell out a bit more money. I believe it’s worth it, though. The part time Assembly is a relic of the past. Connecticut is a modern state with complex and urgent needs. We need a full-time government to deal with them.
Source
Stuart, Christine. “Amann Gives Up Lobbyists; Caruso Calls for Full-Time Legislature.” CT News Junkie 16 March, 2007.
15 responses so far ↓
The 10 million a yr or so it would cost to pay for a ful time Legislature would be saved in spades in each session if we had legislators who weren’t so obviously conflicted as they are today ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
This is really a no brainer.
“Amann said he doesn’t support a full-time legislature because it steals from the diversity of talent. He said the public is already upset about high utility rates and mortgages and that they would revolt against having to pay wages for professional politicians, which is what a full-time legislature would create.”
I couldn’t agree more… we need these guys in the Legislature less .. not more!
The only reason they can;’t get anything done up there in Hartford is because they clog the system with a bunch of crap bills and then waste their time on nonsense like whether 17 year olds should vote, totally ignoring important things like eminent domain abuse, and punishing child sexual predators, or heaven forbid lowering our taxes and providing an environment where businesses might want to stay in CT!
It is a shameful disgrace how these legislators operate. A total waste of my tax dollar as it is. No way would I want them full time, nor would I want to pay them a dime more. They get generous benefits as it is. If Caruso needs a real job, he ought to get one.
You are quite naive if you think making this legislature full time would remove the corruption and conflict of interests.
I agree that providing more time and pay for the legislators to try to take action in Hartford would only lead to worse things in Connecticut. They would find more forms of spending money and they would find new rules to make our lives more difficult. Maybe we should only pay them $5000 per year and give them two weeks to do everything. I’d like that a lot more than the current situation.
Don’t we have a full time legislature in Washington with great pay and benefits for those in office? Can we honestly say we are really happy with the results?
I have a hard time believing that paying the same people who get re-elected over and over again more money suddenly makes them better legislators.
To me the only solution to the endless conflict of interest is term limits. I say we are very lucky to have ONLY a part time legislature. It would be a serious mistake to change that.
Exactly how does paying one more money or changing from part time to full time remove any conflict of interest anyway? Exactly how much money does one need to pay a unethical person to make them ethical?
Let’s see if I get the logic. “We’re all ethically challenged, so make us fulltime.” I think that one requires some careful study and serious public debate.
One immediate and simple reform that could help is to expand the Ethics filings and make them available online. It’s not all that diificult to include in the filings a job description of the outside employment, the amount of time actually spent working at that job, and the rate of pay.
The fact that thses reports are unavailable online in this day and age is patheticl. I once asked the prior Ethics Office why and was told that they were prohibited by law from doing so. They are public records and available if you have the time to go to Hartford and request them in person. The issue of whether these reports belong in the public domain has been decided. Putting them online would simply serve to broaden the access.
To quote Justice Brandeis: “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”
Rep. Lawlor recently said the state should simply post all conviction records online, since the documents are already public records under current law and after that maybe they can post the public records of the legislators’ ethics filings too as JM suggests.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=ac2372ba-e6af-40c5-a66b-209efcd1eb66
HARTFORD — After months of work, the Legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee couldn’t figure out how to deal with rising electricity rates and opted Tuesday to send four bills to the floor for further crafting. Yes, a raise is in oder for these guys at the very leaast. http://www.connpost.com/ci_5432154
I wonder what the turn over rate in the General Assembly is? Does anyone have an idea? What is the average amount of time served? If pay is a problem why do all of these guys work so hard to get re-elected time after time? I certainly hope it is not because it is the only job they can do……
Al, when you say I certainly hope it is not because it is the only job they can do…… I wonder if you meant it’s the only job they can get because I don’t think they do it very well. If the leaders on the LETC had just half a political brain they would have right away this session voted out the proposal by Rell (Nickerson to be honest) to consolidate and rationalize the alphabet soup of executive branch agencies that handle energy matters. Heck, in other states all of this stuff is often consolidated into a commerce or public serivce commisssion.
After they did that they could say to Rell: “OK, here’s your agency now where’s your answer to the outrageus electricity rates here in CT? Chop, chop, get us an answer, you’re full time granny we’re not!”
http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/nickerson/2006/022806.htm
“totally ignoring important things like eminent domain abuse, and punishing child sexual predators, or heaven forbid lowering our taxes and providing an environment where businesses might want to stay in CT! ” — Republitarian.
Please define “abuse” as it comes to eminent domain, because the issue is vastly more complicated than Bob Ward used to, and some other Republicans are now, making it out to be. Can’t take personal property ever, for any reason? What about a crack house? What about an abandoned, polluted property behind on its taxes with an absentee owner? What about 12 homes needed to expand a high school — instead of buying a new parcel and putting up a new high school from scratch — but one homeowner is holding out to get more than his neighbors? It’s not just the nightmare of New London, which I comepletely agree was a misuse of eminent domain and a terrible precedent by the US Supreme Court (thanks Republican appointees!). But, as any big city mayor or councilman will tell you, the occiasional and judicious use of eminent domain is a great tool to acheive — here it comes — the “type of environment where businesses might want to stay in Connecticut.” Or even come here. Look at Steel Point in Bridgeport.
“Punishing child sex predators” — if you mean the governor’s ill-conceived mandatory 25 years in jail for child sex offenders bill, you probably didn’t see the public hearing that bill got before Judiciary. Oh, the GOP stalwarts were foaming at the mouth to get Democrats on the record as being soft on crime. But then the chief state’s attorney Kevin Kane spoke against the bill from top to bottom, as did child advocates, victim advocates, and the judicial branch. Problem is, when a child sex offender is looking at a minimum 25 year sentence, they won’t plea deal. And they know that 1) most cases involve a family member or a relative, and that family members and relatives are reluctant to testify against each other; 2) young children make poor witnesses, and are easily confused by aggressive cross-examination by defense attorneys, who use their contradictions between police statements and court testimony as a grounds for exonerating their client; 3) most parents don’t want to put their child through the horror of re-living their abuse, esp. in the same room as the offender. So, as Kevin Kane said, we try to get 10-12 years in a plea deal. The chances of a sex offender going free when opting for a trial — when facing 25 years or more — are much greater. Hence, the governor’s bill, if passed as she proposed, would have led to MORE sex offenders out in society, not LESS. Worst part is, Kane testified the governor’s office never spoke with him or child advocates before proposing the bill. Another example of Rell’s “shoot first, ask questions later” policy making.
business friendly enviroment — we’ve already got it. It’s called the minimum business tax, or some such thing. Why don’t you call the comptroller’s Monday office and ask how much GE and UTC and other mega, global corporations headquartered in CT, which pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars in annual salaries, pay in income taxes every year? The answer, of course, is $250. Pretty sweet.
But how much do those ceo’s and the employees pay in personal income tax each year? And how much do the corporation’s pay in property taxes?
Want to try getting along without them?
Al, “when you say I certainly hope it is not because it is the only job they can do…… I wonder if you meant it’s the only job they can get”
Tocuan, Good point… Obviously if this is the only job they can get then we have a good explanation for the job performance level, and the results we see.
But let’s be honest, I think the best of us, would have a hard time getting anything done well in the environment these guys operate in.
Beyond that so far no one has given me any reason to change my opinion that these are positions of power these same guys would work hard to keep even if they got no pay at all. That is, besides their solid gold health care benefits.
A part time legislature should not only be part time, it should be for a limited time. If we want people who are in it for what is best for all the people of the state, then we need people who are not there for a career, but there to get things done. We will only get those people if they know going in they have maybe 10 years tops to make their mark. We must get past, party first mentality.
The argument that we need longer secessions to get things done is without merit.. As an example: In my career I had to participate in many union, company, contract negotiations. It never mattered if you set aside one week, or six months, to get them done. Nothing happened until the last day or two. Do you really think things are different in the General Assembly?
Finally, Isn’t it amazing how a few CEO’s who are obviously very over paid seem to piss everyone off? At least the state cleans up on their income taxes as JM points out above here. Meanwhile, we have over 50,000 state workers who’s benefits are so extravagant, that this state is over $7 billion in the hole just to pay them for their benefits…..I guess that is OK……… Look, two wrongs don’t make a right, but at least accept there are at least two wrongs……
It’s not a matter of “getting along without them.” It’s the principle of a multi-billion dollar corporations, which are entities and subject to income taxes, paying $250 a year. If you don’t see the basic unfairness in that there is absolutely no argument I can make to sway your opinion.
No! Folks, a full-time legislature is not going to make our lives appreciably better. A full-time legislature is not going to cure the common cold, make it easier to save for my kids’ education, make it easier to save for my retirement, or take care of my aging parents.
Legislators with potential conflicts need to TELL THE TRUTH, let the sunshine in, and be transparent. Then let us, the voters, decide whether we think our state senator is playing it too close with his or her job, or SEE whether we see a pattern between their potential conflicts and their votes.
Last year, “conflicts” were all about campaign cash. I didn’t like it, but I’m willing to see what happens at the next election. But please don’t tell me that the answer is higher salaries or full-time. I LIKE that my state rep has to earn a living. Campaign finance reform was all about breaking up the political class. Let’s not enshrine it with a full time state legislature. They’re good people. Making them full time to avoid the conflict issue is getting it backwards. It is the tail waggin the dog.
Show me what you do, Senator. Show me your votes. I’ll decide.
Please.
thesea: nobody’s saying eminenet domain is bad when used for the taking is for for public use or public protection; what we’re saying is that it is bad when used to take from one to give to another; unfortunatley, people like Sen. Bill Finch think that’s a good thing and therefor, we have no reform.
You must log in to post a comment.