One Way To Promote Job Growth and Stability: Eliminate Tuition At State's Public Colleges

The earning power of college graduates versus those whose highest attainment is a high school diploma favors the former by a wide margin. In central Connecticut, it doesn't really matter anymore if you want a job as an analyst at an insurance company or fill out an application at a small manufacturer to build parts on the shop floor. You will need post-secondary skills to fill decent paying jobs in our regional economy.

That's what makes State Rep. Timothy O'Brien's legislation to eliminate in-state tuition for students at UCONN, the state universities and the community colleges intriguing. So intriguing that O'Brien's proposal has drawn considerable press coverage, including a February 21 story in the Meriden Record-Journal.

House Bill 5261 "will eliminate all tuition and fees for in-state residents" and proposes "that funding be increased to offset the costs" of eliminating in-state tuition at the public colleges and universities. While many would call the O'Brien idea unaffordable, the need to make college and post-secondary training opportunities available is broadly recognized as a key to retaining jobs and a stronger economy.


O'Brien's idea is not new. Free public education is an idea deeply rooted in the American egalitarian ideal. Once upon time California was a K-graduate school system without tuitions and fees. And last year MA Governor Duval Patrick, a business friendly Democrat, proposed a guarantee that the 12 community colleges in his state be open and tuition-free.


According to the Record Journal, O'Brien recognizes the current reliance on student tuition and fees to meet operating costs: "O'Brien's bill would require students who did not pay tuition and fees for the duration of college to pay a fixed rate for a certain amount of time after they graduate, depending on their income. If they move out of state, however, the students would be required to pay back the full amount."


Says O'Brien: "I introduced this legislation because I think that it is time that Connecticut start talking about the fact that high tuition and fees at our public institutions of higher education is a growing barrier to a college education for many people in our state, even if good financial aid is available for students." O'Brien emphasizes that the bill is also an effort to stem a "brain drain" that will encourage young people to stay in Connecticut.

While O'Brien concedes that House Bill 5261 will likely go no where in a short legislative session. He knows it opens an important discussion on educational access and economic policy that will not end with the close of the General Assembly this year.

Post originally appeared at http://newbritaindemocrat.blogspot.com

A Brief History of Delegates And Super Delegates

The origins of pledged delegates chosen in caucuses and primaries and "super delegates" are getting much more scrutiny with no resolution in the Clinton versus Obama race. That was the case at the Feb. 21st New Britain Democratic Town Committee meeting. DTC member Butch Wierbicki, a United Auto Workers retiree, asked with a tone of suspicion in his voice where and when did the super delegates come from?

The earlier-than-ever Iowa and New Hampshire face offs and the front-loading of many primaries were supposed to make curiosity about delegates a moot point. Last December conventional wisdom held that New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who had already signed up a good share of the "super delegates", would be the inevitable nominee before one rank and file Democrat went to vote in a caucus or primary.

Butch Wierbicki is not alone in wondering about super delegates. Many Democrats and observers are asking and wondering about delegate selection because every delegate vote now matters. You've heard the numbers. The Democratic nominee will need 2,025 delegate votes out of more than 4,000 for the nomination at the national convention in Denver in August. As of March 1, both Clinton and Obama had amassed over 1,000 delegates each for the stretch run. Obama is holding an advantage after 11 straight primary and caucus victories and the early favorite Clinton is seeking a comeback on March 4th and the April 22nd primary in Pennsylvania.

The delegate make up of the 2008 Democratic National Convention springs from two conflicting trends in the Democratic Party over the last 40 years. One (grassroots) is to empower the rank and file to select the nominee. Delegates pledged to a candidate at the district level are the grassroots. The other (top-down) is to allow party potentates to have an automatic voice to determine the nominees, party platforms and rules. These are the super delegates, officially known as "Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEOs)" as stipulated in national party bylaws.

In 1968, a fractious national convention torn up by the Vietnam War made concessions to reformers to review rules for a more open selection process. The result was the McGovern-Fraser Commission, which established a process that gave grassroots people, union members and minorities a greater chance at becoming delegates. The more "democratic" rules took effect in 1972 when former Senator George McGovern (who led the commission) became the nominee.

In 1982, the pendulum had swung the other way. According to www.superdelegates.org: "As the Democratic Party increased their use of primaries and caucuses to select delegates during the 1960s and 1970s, intra-party criticism continued, with the opinion expressed that some control of the nomination process should remain among party elites. Although the McGovern-Fraser reforms insured significant primary delegate representation by the 1972 National Convention, Democratic presidential defeats in 1972 and 1980, and the surprise success of then-outsider candidate Jimmy Carter's nomination in 1976, increased the call for more control being vested with Party leaders."

Enter the Hunt Commission (led by then North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt). Hunt's group established the super delegates representing 15% of the convention -- a percentage that has since grown to 20% of all delegates. Former Cong. and 1984 Vice Presidential Nominee Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter, defended super delegates in a February 25th Op-Ed article in the New York Times: "So we created super delegates and gave that designation to every Democratic member of Congress. Today the 796 super delegates also include Democratic governors, former presidents and vice presidents, and members of the Democratic National Committee and former heads of the national committee. These super delegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee."

In reality, super delegates are an attempt to put a little bit of the "smoke-filled room" back into the process. They are meant as a counterweight to the reforms adopted following the McGovern-Fraser Commission that paved the way for proportional delegate selection and the opportunity for rank and file Democrats (not party regulars) to become delegates.

Super delegates have every right to lead as Ms. Ferraro suggests, but they also need to heed what primary voters and district delegates want in 2008 if the Democratic nominee is to prevail in November. There can be no turning back the clock to "party bosses" and the smoke filled rooms of yesteryear. Unlike 1972, Democrats will have the best chance of winning the Presidency by upholding the open and democratic reforms that allowed the grassroots to get to conventions nearly 40 years ago.

In Connecticut, separate Clinton and Obama caucuses will be held on March 19th in each Congressional District to pick the delegates pledged to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Reflecting the popular vote of Feb. 5th, Obama will have the edge on pledged district delegates (It's 3 to 3 in the 5th Congressional District). Additional at-large delegates will be selected by district delegates after the caucuses. There are 11 super delegates from Connecticut, including Senator Dodd and the four Democratic members of Congress. Dodd and U.S. Reps. Murphy, DeLauro and Larson have swung to Obama. The other superdelegates include National Committee members Ellen Camhi, Anthony Avallone, Steve Fontana and John Olsen, State Party Chair Nancy DiNardo and New Haven's Marty DunLeavy who gains his status by virtue of being a member of the National Democratic Party's "ethnic coordinating committee." More information is available at www.ctdems.org

New Year Finally Brings Dramatic Change To Financing of Campaigns

A system of public financing of political campaigns will bring dramatic change to many state House and Senate races in 2008. While the full impact will not be felt until 2010 when races for Governor and statewide offices will occur, the law’s intent is to begin to restrict the corrosive influence of money in politics that reached its nadir during the Rowland years.

Without John Rowland’s violations of the public trust coming to light, the land of steady habits might still be stuck with a government increasingly influenced by excessive political money and corporate-funded special interests.

It is worth noting (with no small amount of irony) that in 2000 Connecticut's Democratic-controlled General Assembly approved a Clean Elections law modeled after Maine's law that was adopted by referendum in 1996. Governor Rowland, unbowed by the imprisonment of his State Treasurer, Paul Silvester, for graft in the handling of state pension funds, vetoed a Connecticut clean election law. Had it been adopted the reform might have spared Rowland himself from jail time.

“It is an exciting time for democracy in Connecticut,” says State Rep. Tim O’Brien (D-24) who served on the GAE Committee that helped craft legislation designed to diminish the influence of lobbyist money and that includes an outright contribution ban on contractors who do business with the state.

“For generations, we have dreamed of an open election system in which people's voices matter more than special interest money. Now, it is a reality,” declares O’Brien in launching his 2008 campaign for the state House that will rely on grassroots contributions. To voluntarily opt in to the “Citizen’s Election Program” state House candidates will be required to obtain individual contributions in their communities. A state representative must obtain 150 donations in his or her community; a state senator must obtain 300 donations, most of which will be small-scale contributions of no more than $100. Candidates who opt not to participate will be required to file and disclose campaign finance information.

The state Elections Enforcement Commission, which is administering the Citizen’s Election Program, has set forth basic goals:
(1) to allow candidates to compete without reliance on special interest money; (2) to curtail excessive spending and create a more level playing field among candidates; (3) to give candidates without access to sources of wealth a meaningful opportunity to seek elective office, and;(4) to provide the public with meaningful and timely disclosure of campaign finances.

Connecticut’s Citizens’ Election program, adopted in the wake of the Rowland scandals, is modeled after Maine’s Clean Elections law. The Maine law now involves 80% of legislative candidates from all political persuasions. It has won praise for reducing excessive spending and, according to a recent study by the Maine ethics commission, allowed candidates to devote more time talking issues and getting feedback from voters.

The high stakes test for Connecticut’s citizen-funded election program won’t come until gubernatorial and statewide races in 2010. There may also be a need to adjust the law to empower Town Committees and encourage grassroots financing in the new system. And no one should assume that the Clean Elections Program is all that will be needed to enforce strong ethics in government. What is clear, however, is that Connecticut lawmakers, pushed by reformers such as Rep. O’Brien, had to strike a blow against corruption in the wake of John Rowland's exit and indiscretions.

Opponents of public financing had always used the argument that taxpayer money should not finance political campaigns. But that argument finally fell to the side when the question was asked: how much more will taxpayers pay for abuses of the public trust made possible by campaigns funded entirely by private interests?

“This is an important moment in history, and I would like to ask you to be a part of reclaiming our democracy,” says Rep. O’Brien in making his campaign part of a citizen-based election system.

In the long term, proponents of the law such as O’Brien and New Britain’s Democratic lawmakers view the new campaign system as a catalyst to enacting major reforms. Progress on key consumer issues such as a more equitable tax system, universal health care and controlling energy and utility costs have long been thwarted by powerful corporate lobbyists whose influence have now been diminished in the 2008 election cycle.

Thanks John Rowland. We could not have done it without you.

Downtown's Future: A Place To Live Within Walking Distance of Public Transit

Downtown New Britain is no longer a "downtown," if that word means anything. But if it's no longer the city's commercial or business center, then what is it?

from NBBlogs

The revitalization of downtown New Britain was not much of an issue during the 2007 municipal campaign. The welcome news of Carvel Corporation's move to the long vacant Smart Park (the former Stanley Works factory parcel)and a meaningless flare up over the location of a new police station were about the only headlines drawing attention to the city's vital center this year.

Downtown is ripe for new investment and development that needs to be managed wisely by city and state officials over the next five years. One of the big challenges of putting a viable downtown New Britain back together has to do with Route 9, the highway that connects I-84 to I-91 and shore points. New Britain is not unique among U.S. cities in having a four-lane roadway built 40 or 50 years ago that hastened decline of the central business district. The major task now is to undo that public works and public policy fiasco that cut the city in two.

As Pat Thibodeau observes in a recent post on his blog about New Britain, there's no bringing back a downtown full of big retailers and big stores that people pouring out of factories patronized in the middle of the 20th century.

Thibodeau sees the opening of C-Town -- an urban grocer that people walk to -- as a harbinger of downtown's future. "Downtown New Britain isn't so much the place to be (the old city slogan), as it is a place to live. It has the potential to become an interesting and lively neighborhood," he says. He goes on:

Downtown housing is likely to be occupied by single adults or couples who want to be in walking distance to essential services and stores. I also believe that, more and more, people will be interested in living without having to own a car, even in Connecticut. (I just paid about $25 for 8 gallons of gas at the Sunoco near West Farms. What happens when gas hits $4 a gallon?)

Thibodeau's analysis needs to be heeded as key pieces of real estate (the old police station, the Herald building and the New-Brite shopping plaza) enter the development picture in the immediate or near future. Above all, officials at the local level need to be ready to take full advantage of the New Britain-to-Hartford busway that will turn the old Greenfield's property into a transit hub and instantly make the land and buildings around it more attractive for private investment. These investments will have little need (nor should they) for abatements and public subsidies for business that desperate cities often use to boost their grand lists. Like third world countries fighting poverty, distressed U.S. cities are engaged in a "race to the bottom" because of the property tax.

Last July experts, lawyers and developers were at New Britain City Hall to outline some exciting plans for a downtown in dire need of good ideas and new public/private investment. Careful listeners to a study prepared by Harrall-Michalowski Associates wouldn't be wrong in thinking they may have already heard much of what is being proposed. To paraphrase Yogi Berra: "It was deja vu all over again."

If you flashback two years to the 2005 campaign, Jason Jakubowski, the Democratic mayoral nominee, unveiled a plan called "Project Hope" that represented a comprehensive and very ambitious agenda to bring downtown back. Jakubowski, reviving some older proposals dating back to the DeFronzo administration and raising the new ones, defined "hope" for downtown with a nine-point plan that included a new police station and the conversion of New-Brite into a collegiate sports and conference center multi-plex. He urged an expanded role for Central CT State and Charter Oak State downtown and proposed an arts and entertainment district built around the city's existing assets. To correct the highway mistake of the 70's, a mini platform idea was floated again to bridge the divide between East Main Street and Columbus Boulevard.

Jakubowski's "Project Hope" and the master plan to come from consultants hired by the city this year are based on the same essential component: the federally funded busway planned to run aside the railroad tracks from New Britain through Newington and onto downtown Hartford.

While the busway is still five years away at best, the city and state -- working together -- could begin to put into place elements of a plan that will make downtown "interesting and lively" for visitors and residents who are ready to consider the center of the city a place to live if convenient public transit exists.

An interim step that could happen within a year is to upgrade the existing downtown bus stop. "One thing New Britain should try to get the state to do is improve the downtown bus hub," states Thibodeau. "The bus pick-up location at West Main and Main Streets is dismal and unattractive. It actually looks dangerous. It needs an extreme makeover to encourage new riders." A cosmetic makeover next to the municipal garage would invite greater use of public transit before the busway arrives.

And what would be wrong with a commuter bus direct from downtown New Britain into Hartford? There is a commuter Express near Corbin's Corner with limited services now. It should be expanded to downtown given the thousands of New Britain residents -- not to mention people from adjoining towns -- who trek into downtown Hartford to work every day. More local service -- a university downtown shuttle and a route up to the West Main Street business area -- would get people to work and shop without using a car at $3.30 a gallon.

It's time to implement a transit-based economic development strategy now and not wait for the first ride on the busway some of us plan to take circa 2012.

Celebrating The Life of Tony Norris: December 9th At Marchegian Hall

This is also the town I grew up in. It’s my community, so I appreciate doing something here. This community has given a lot to me, so I am giving something back. That’s a lot. Not many people get that much satisfaction out of their job. I feel I’m really honored that I get that much satisfaction.

from "City Farmer Gives Back To His Community" www.workingtheland.com (Simon Pure Productions)

Friends and associates of Urban Oaks Organic Farm Founder Tony Norris will hold a dinner buffet and program in celebration of his life on Sunday, December 9th, at 4 p.m. at the Marchegian Society Ballroom, 40 Acorn Street.

Norris, 59, died November 18th after a long battle with cancer. The New Britain native, a citizen activist who helped many Democratic candidates through the years, established Urban Oaks in 1999 with his partner, Mike Kandefer. The former Sandelli Florist property on Oak Street, blighted and unused, was converted into a working organic farm serving the public and restaurants throughout the state. It is considered one of the largest urban farms in the Northeast.

Interested persons may RSVP for the dinner to Maria Agramonte-Gomez at (860) 826-7585 or by e-mail to the Urban Oaks Farm at urbanoaks@earthlink.net. There is no admission charge but financial contributions in memory of Norris are encouraged to: Urban Oaks Farm, c/o Human Resources Agency of New Britain, 180 Clinton Street, New Britain, CT 06053.

An interview with Tony Norris may be found at
http://www.workingtheland.com/interview-norris.htm

Courant Turns Blind Eye To Mayor's Real Indiscretions

Last week The Hartford Courant editorial board found another way to endorse Tim Stewart by defending some foul-mouthed language of the incumbent in a call to a dispatcher during 2005 flooding. The call, widely circulated in a You Tube posting, drew considerable press coverage. "The most appalling thing about this episode is that New Britain's Democrats can't seem to come up with anything better," opined an editorial last week. "They ought to be playing ball by telling New Britain residents how they'll further the city's future; instead, they're low-balling."

The Courant states the obvious in saying voters could give a rat's *** (excuse the paraphrase) over Tim Stewart's mouth. More on "rats" in a moment. But the editor's indulgence of Stewart's trivial "indiscretion" comes after the same editorial board ignored the facts and circumstances of Stewart's public policy indiscretions --- indiscretions raised by James Wyskiewicz and other Democrats that can hardly be called "low-balling" unless the Courant feels transparency in government and telling the truth to residents matters. The Courant devoted no less than three editorials on "Tilcon Water Rat" legislation last summer, condemning legislators but not once mentioning that it was Stewart's request and misrepresentation of facts that prompted the special legislation. Subsequently, New Britain lawmakers rescinded the action that would have allowed a Tilcon lease of watershed land.

Did the Courant acknowledge that Democratic legislators addressed their concerns? We're still waiting.

According to one comment to the latest editorial: "So after giving the mayor three passes on negatively written comments, they proceed to give the mayor a glowing endorsement, and again not mention his significant role in the creation of hated legislation. To compound this oversight, neither the editorial board nor any reporters ever comment on the fact that the mayor actually went ahead and signed a lease with Tilcon a few days before the legislature repealed the enabling legislation. He did this despite the fact that the original bill had provisions in it clearly stating the mayor could not do this without first holding multiple public hearings and having the city council approve the lease."

As Courant editors defend the mayor on his salty language and his right to get a good night's sleep during '05's serious flooding, they ignore a far more serious indiscretion over the Tilcon "rat" they professed to care so much about. Colin McEnroe, whose blog is carried by the Courant, found no small amount of irony in the Courant's defense of the Mayor over last week's "potty mouth" episode.

Letters, Secret Agreement Reveal Stewart’s Doublespeak on Tilcon Deal

An exchange of August letters and documents between the administration of Mayor Tim Stewart (R-New Britain) and the state Department of Public Health shows that Stewart deliberately misled residents and other public officials in an effort to gain quick approval for a controversial deal giving Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. 131 acres of watershed land for its mining operation.

In September, State Rep. Tim O’Brien (D-24) and State Senator Don DeFronzo (D-6), reacting to concerns of residents and environmentalists as well as Stewart’s contradictory statements and actions on the issue, successfully sought repeal of a law that had initially cleared the way for a Tilcon takeover of watershed land to expand its quarry operation over the next generation.

The Tilcon lease move first saw the light of day shortly after Stewart visited state legislators at the beginning of June -- the last week of the Legislature’s session --seeking special legislation to gain personal pension rights for himself as a firefighter on leave from the city Fire Department and for the Tilcon proposal that required an exception to law protecting watersheds.

Public Act 07-244 was signed into law by Gov. Rell in July allowing the lease of watershed land. New Britain Democratic lawmakers supported the legislation in the waning days of the 2007 session at the behest of the Stewart Administration. They were informed that legislative action was needed quickly to make the land lease with a $15 million return for the city over 40 years possible. Legislators successfully inserted amendments into the law that required Tilcon to restore the leased land "for a public drinking water reservoir" and "the surrounding land for reforestation." At the time the measure drew sharp editorial criticisms three times in The Hartford Courant with the newspaper asserting that the legislative "rat" allowed the lease of watershed at the expense of environmental protection.

While the repeal nixes immediate approval and compels the company and city to pursue the deal with full public input and environmental oversight, the summer controversy shows how far the Stewart administration went to consummate a major public policy decision in secret.

At an August 7th neighborhood meeting of the Hickory Hill-Westwood Block Watch committee, Stewart claimed his administration had not acted on the proposed mining project lease -- a deal promising the city $15 million over 40 years for access to watershed that has long been part of a public trust and subject to environmental protection. "If the people don't want it, so be it," Stewart told the Hickory Hill committee as reported by the New Britain Herald.. "I will support you 100 percent. It doesn't have to go. Marilynn (referring to Marilyn Slate, a Block Watch leader), why don't you do this for me: Start a petition.”

On the same day (August 7), Mayor Stewart was telling residents that their wishes would be considered, however, his Board of Water Commissioners Chairman, Patrick Hamel, had already signed off on a lease proposal outline. The lease agreement -- the equivalent of a letter of agreement – stipulated the terms of the long-term lease between the city and Tilcon Connecticut. The agreement had already been signed on August 6th by Richard Mergens, Tilcon’s President. The agreement, labeled, "Lease Proposal Outline," clearly specifies that that city would have leased New Britain-owned watershed land to Tilcon for forty years for $130,798.17 per acre. The terms of the one-page agreement signed by Stewart's administration are unclear, raising the important legal question about whether it would have been legally possible for the city to withdraw from the deal or to change its terms – like the amount of the proposed lease.

As late as September 13th, Republican Town Chair Paul Carver, whose wife, Lisa, is Stewart's Chief of Staff, was quoted in the New Britain Herald saying that, "there is no deal. The legislation was to allow a deal, which will be followed by a public hearing. If residents are against the deal, Mayor Stewart has said he will pull a plug on the plan." This statement came after residents, taking Stewart at his word, had submitted 350 signatures on a petition opposing immediate approval of a Tilcon lease. But Carver’s statement to residents is contradicted by what had already occurred in August. Stewart’s attempted fast tracking of the watershed lease continued August 23rd in a hand-delivered letter from the city’s assistant corporation counsel, Joseph Skelly, to Dr. Robert Galvin, the state Commissioner of Public Health. “Our office represents the City of New Britain and Board of Water Commissioners,” Skelly wrote. “I have enclosed an executed Lease Proposal Outline between the Board of Water Commissioners and Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. for 0 Biddle Pass, Plainville, Connecticut. In accordance with Public Act No. 07-244, Sec 6 (b)(1), we will be submitting for your approval the name of an independent third party to conduct the environmental evaluation.” The letter sought state approval before the Legislature could meet to consider the DeFronzo-O’Brien repeal measure.

On August 30th, the Department of Public Health responded to the Stewart administration’s hastily sent lease agreement. Gerald Iwan, a DPH Section Chief responsible for drinking water, informed Stewart that “based on a recent discussion on August 24, 2007 with Mr. Gilbert Bligh of the City of New Britain Water Department, the Outline as provided is not considered final...Also, DPH can not consider approval of the lease until a number of items outlined within PA 07-244 are completed.”

With the successful repeal of PA 07-244 in September, the maneuverings of the Stewart administration to conclude the lease deal quickly and secretly are null and void. To legislators and residents, however, Stewart’s actions showed a disregard for the truth and a disregard for an environment long protected by a public trust.