APP Committee Hearing Transcript for 02/22/2005

REPRESENTATIVE MERRILL: We're going to call this public hearing to order. Before we do anything else, I have to make this announcement about safety.

In the interest of safety, I ask you to note the location of and access to exits in this hearing room. This is our new safety statement here.

The two doors through which you entered in the room are the emergency exits and are marked with exit signs. In an emergency, the two doors behind the Legislators can also be used. These two.

In the event of an emergency, please walk quickly to the nearest exit. After exiting the room, go to your right, proceed to the main stairs, or follow the exit signs to one of the five stairways.

Please quickly exit the building, following instructions from the Capitol police. I feel like an airline stewardess, but that's okay. All right, thank you.

We are starting with some agency presentations. Most of the public testimony is limited to three minutes. We do have, I think, 55 people signed up to testify this evening, so I would ask that everyone please adhere to the three-minute limit.

I know it's very difficult to limit things to three minutes. However, in the interest of time and making sure everybody gets a chance to testify, I'm going to be pretty strict about the time limit.

Agencies, you get to have five minutes. With that, I will call the first persons signed up, Leslie Gabel-Brett and Cindy Slain.

CINDY SLAIN: [inaudible – microphone not on]

REP MERRILL: Yes, you need to press that button and announce your name for the record. Thank you.

CINDY SLAIN: Good evening, Representative Merrill and other Members of the Committee. My name is Cindy Slain.

I am an Appointed Member and Vice Chair of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women. I am also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University School of Law.

Thank for this opportunity to testify regarding the proposed budget for the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women. We respectfully ask you to support the budget proposal for our agency contained in the Governor's budget document.

PCSW has been bringing the voices of women to the State Capitol for over 30 years, and through all of that time, we have been at the forefront of continuing progress for women in our state.

Our job is to provide information, analysis, and assistance to the General Assembly, State agencies, State leaders, and the public so that we can all work together to improve the status of Connecticut's women and girls.

We represent a small investment that produces a sizeable and valuable return. Because of the work of the PCSW, our State government has been better equipped to address the needs of working parents, victims of sexual harassment, women with healthcare concerns such as breast cancer and osteoporosis, women business owners, parents seeking child support, women leaving welfare for work, childcare workers, and women entering nontraditional occupations.

Over the past several years, the responsibilities of our agency have increased significantly, both in quantity and complexity.

In the 2003 season, for example, the Legislature enacted Public Act 03-151, requiring us to collaborate with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to provide ten hours of training per year to all state agency affirmative action officers.

Last year, our Public Information Officer worked with staff from the CHRO to provide that training to approximately 300 state agency personnel, supporting them in their enforcement of state and federal affirmative action laws and policies.

In the same Legislative session, Public Act 03-142 created a Career Ladders Advisory Committee, and named the PCSW as co-chair with the Office of Workforce Competitiveness.

We are proud of the progress we have made to create an Allied Health Academy to offer career ladders to health workers who want to become nurses, and of our efforts to build career ladders for childcare workers.

Likewise in 2003, the Connecticut Department of Corrections signed a stipulated agreement to resolve a sexual harassment suit pending in federal court, an agreement that assigned significant responsibilities to the PCSW for the subsequent four years.

Under the agreement, the PCSW is charged with hiring and supervising a Sexual Harassment Consultant to monitor all investigations and resolutions of sexual harassment and retaliation claims within the DOC, and to assist the Department in improving its policies and procedures.

Per the agreement, the PCSW also co-chairs a sexual harassment working group, and assists the DOC in training its employees.

The 2004 session brought additional responsibility, as the General Assembly enacted Special Act 04-8, requiring the PCSW to convene and provide staff support to an interagency task force on trafficking in persons.

The task force, chaired by Senator Andrea Stillman, has brought together Legislators, law enforcement personnel, experts on domestic violence and sexual assault, and community leaders representing immigrants and refugees, to help us understand and respond to the problem of human trafficking in our state.

We are proud of the role we play in bringing these important issues forward, and of the responsibilities we assume in working with the General Assembly, state agencies, and others to address them.

But we note that, even as we have taken on many new responsibilities, our budget has been reduced by nearly one-quarter.

We are here tonight to seek restoration of our budget so that we can meet all of our responsibilities, and so that we can do so at the high level of performance that both our elected and appointed officials, and all of the citizens of Connecticut, have a right to expect.

We believe our budget represents the type of state spending that saves money in the long run.

For example, in addition to working with the Department of Corrections pursuant to the stipulated agreement, the PCSW has provided sexual harassment prevention training to 5,000 State employees over five years, in agencies such as the Banking Department, the Connecticut State University System Central Office, the Department of Revenue Services, the Department of Corrections, the Office of the Attorney General, and Legislative Management.

PCSW charges no fee to these agencies. Without the training services provided by the PCSW though, these agencies would have had to pay between $400 and $600 for each two-hour training session required by law for all supervisors.

The PCSW also designs and participates in programs that directly help women and girls improve their lives.

Last week, we began another pre-apprenticeship training class for 15 women who will graduate and enter paid apprenticeships in the skilled trades or other new fields.

Their lives will change in measurable ways as a result of their participation in this program, because they will have the opportunity to earn more money, receive better benefits, and create brighter futures for themselves and their families.

The Connecticut Department of Labor and the Hartford Jobs Funnel, under the auspices of Capital Workforce Partners, funds this program.

Every year too the PCSW works with other partner organizations to provide programs for girls, such as Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day and the Girls and Technology Expo, to help them develop skills, self-esteem, and new career aspirations.

We provide information and services to the public as well. We respond to over 400 calls per year from individuals seeking information about state laws and services.

And in 2003 and 2004, staff and Commissioners spoke at 40 events sponsored by groups ranging from the Connecticut National Guard, to the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners, to students at our vocational high schools.

Our statutory mandate requires us, among other duties, to serve as a liaison between government and private interest groups concerned with services for women.

And we often think of ourselves as a gateway for the concerns of different populations of women across the State.

To help our constituencies to bring their ideas, their issues to the attention of State government, the PCSW convenes the Connecticut Women's Agenda, an open forum for any organization addressing issues that affect the status of women, five Congressional District Advisory Councils, composed of more than 200 women and men who serve in leadership roles around the state, the Connecticut Women's Health Campaign, a statewide coalition of experts and advocates working together to improve healthcare for women and girls, the Women's Economic Development Initiative, a statewide coalition of women business owners, lenders, and state officials working to improve the climate for women-owned businesses, and the Nontraditional Employment for Women Steering Committee, to increase opportunities for women in the skilled trades and technical careers.

Connecticut statute also requires us to promote consideration of qualified women for all levels of government.

To that end, we maintain a talent bank of women interested in serving on state boards and commissions. In 2004, there were over 400 women listed in our Talent Bank. Seven women from this list were appointed to serve in state government.

We have made a great deal of progress in Connecticut, but women and girls are not fully equal yet. There is still much work to be done.

While Connecticut ranks first in the nation in individual earnings, we rank 43^rd in terms of the wage gap between women and men.

Women and girls are still victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, childcare workers are still paid far less than truck drivers, and women are still far more likely than men to be poor as they grow old.

At the PCSW, we are working for all of our children and grandchildren, so they can grow up in a world where full social, political, and economic equality is possible for everyone.

We bring you the voices, the stories, the information, and the analysis that assist you in your efforts to build that world.

We count on you to provide us with the resources that we need to continue to this good work, a small investment in service of a most important and very valuable goal. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. We know you do very good work. Now let me be clear, is there an exact request you're making?

CINDY SLAIN: Our budget request and the figure that is in the Governor's proposal is for something a little in excess of $700,000.

That would allow us to restore one support position and also, hopefully, to conduct some of the research we have planned over the next couple of years.

REP. MERRILL: Great. Thank you. I'll see what we can do.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Question.

REP. MERRILL: Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I don't know about her, but I got tired just listening to all the wonderful things that they do.

CINDY SLAIN: I have to give the staff the credit, in fairness. We Commissioners have our role, but our staff is really exceptional.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I wanted to ask you something you mentioned, and I wanted to have the Commissions, when they get up, ask, and I think, we ladies sitting around the circle are very interested in seeing more women and more people of color on the boards and commissions, and I see where you have a talent bank.

CINDY SLAIN: Yes.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I'm assuming that's a diverse talent bank that you have there.

CINDY SLAIN: It is a very diverse talent bank. They are all women, so it's not diverse as to gender.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Yes, I didn't mean gender. We were on the same page. The other thing I wanted to talk to you about, and maybe it's just a feeling that I have, but I believe there's a glass ceiling, and we've talked about that often?

CINDY SLAIN: Yes.

REP. KIRKLEY BEY: But I also think there's a tin ceiling, and the tin ceiling has to do with women of color. We can't even get to the glass because we've got to get through the tin, which is a much more formidable material.

Have you or are you seeing any trends in saying that women of color doing comparable jobs are still not getting paid even the same as their counterparts, never mind the same as men?

CINDY SLAIN: Unfortunately, the progress hasn't been as remarkable as we would have liked. In fact, women of color, and I believe women of Hispanic origin, are likely to be paid the least for comparable work of any group.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I guess my question is, and this is probably to Leslie. How do we address that, Leslie? I know it, I'm sure people sitting around here, maybe many people in the audience know, but how do we get that message out?

LESLIE GABEL-BRETT: Well, for the record, I am Leslie Gabel-Brett, Executive Director of the Commission on Women. So let me try to answer both questions together. I want to go back to your first question about boards and commissions.

Because race and gender are both barriers to appointment and representation in state government, we've collaborated with our sisters and brothers in crime.

If you will [inaudible] Puerto Rican Affairs and African American Affairs and an outside advocacy group, DemocracyWorks, to create a project called Reflecting Connecticut, where we try to combine the efforts we have with our various talent things to both people of color and women of all racial and ethnic groups for appointment in state boards and commissions and at the municipal level as well.

So we're working on it, and we absolutely agree with your concerns. As it relates to pay equity, I can only just give some examples.

As Cindy said, the pyramid of earnings goes, you know, after the men earn more than women, white women earn more, African-American women earn slightly less, and Hispanic women earn the least, as Cindy said.

But some of our efforts are, for example, when we work on the issue of childcare workers or the low pay for childcare workers, we want to raise their pay and we want to give them the opportunity to have career ladders.

Most of the women in that occupational category are women of color, and particularly when we work with healthcare workers who are certified nurses' assistants. Not only are they mostly women of color, they're often immigrant women who have those jobs.

So we are doing our best to address gender and race together in our efforts. I don't have any magic solutions, and I look forward to continuing to work with you and the leadership that you all exercise in this issue.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Anyone else? If not, thank you for your testimony. You're welcome. Next we have Fernando Betancourt.

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: Good evening, Representative Merrill and all Members of the Committee. My name is Fernando Betancourt, and I am the Executive Director of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission.

Let me start by excusing our chairperson, Commissioner Ramon Arroyo, and the vice chairperson, Alcides Ortiz. They are out of the state. They wanted to be here and testify, but they will not be able to do so.

As you know, the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission was created by the Legislature in 1995 and we are part of the Legislative Branch of government.

Instead of reading my testimony, what I would like to do is just briefly summarize a number of points. Some of them are our mission statement.

Our mission is to coordinate and provide access to resources by developing and recommending to the Governor and the Legislator policy for the advancement of the Latino Puerto Rican community of the state.

If you look in my testimony on page two and three, there are eight bullets that summarize all the Legislative Mandates and they are very broad.

To the effect by in compliance with those mandates, the Commission has worked diligently since this inception and has been extremely successful in accomplishing the following, and I'm just mentioning a couple of projects as a way of simplifying our work.

One, we produced the only socioeconomic study on the study of Latinos living in the State of Connecticut, allowing our Commission to have a wider range of opinions by sectors, including citizens at large and leaders of our community for various ongoing research projects.

This is commissioned every two years to the Center for Public Policy and Research. And if you look later on my testimony, we need the money to leverage private dollars so we can at least do it one more time. We have done it three times.

The talent bank, I believe for my colleague from the Commission of Women, Leslie Gabel-Brett, summarized the entire project, but I wanted to go even further.

As you can see from our mandate, we do work for the State, but we also do a service, a liaison of this commission and the community at large, including municipal polices.

As a result, this project also is trying to diversify the composition of boards at the local level and the municipal level.

And with the State Controller now we're going to engage in another phase, which is trying, for the first time, to diversify the corporate boards in the State of Connecticut.

As you are very familiar with, we have developed on a yearly basis, our Legislative agenda and we have a very successful Annual Gala-Award, which directly complies with one of the mandates.

And I want to emphasize we do not use public monies. We have been very successful in attracting private dollars to accomplish that mandate without tapping into our budget.

We created the only Bilingual Toastmasters Club in the state. On page 4, I also provide you with some of the statistics that show the need in our community, and I think that we have highlighted those to several Legislators both in the Senate and the House in terms of a specific geographical concerns or needs.

Let me finalize by saying that both the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 were very difficult and it has been a very difficult challenge for all of us.

We have not requested any increase in our employees or staff and we're doing the same. However, we were fortunate to keep our present level of staffing in the last two years.

But as you can see on my last page, our operation budget was cut by 50% and the equipment line item by 99%. For that, with only $45,000 a year, we have to operate the Commission.

And I would like to urge you to support the act into use by Senator Deluca and Representative Ward, Minority Leaders, that restore partially some of the funding that we had at the level of the year 2000.

Without that level of funding, it's very difficult to achieve the level of compliance with our mandates. Thank you for the opportunity.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Questions? Representative Walker?

REP. WALKER: Good evening. Could you just tell me what exactly was the budget amount that you're looking for the dollars?

FERNANDO BETANCOURT: The total amount for this fiscal year is $102,000. The present level is $45,000 and I have the document with me. It's $103,360 for 2005 and 2006, and for the following year, $103,440.00.

REP. WALKER: Thanks.

FERNADO BETANCOURT: You're welcome.

REP. MERRILL: Anyone else? If not, thank you very much. Next, we have Vanessa Burns.

VANESSA BURNS: Good evening, Representative Merrill and Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Vanessa Burns and I am the Executive Director of the African-American Affairs Commission.

First of all, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for allowing the Commission the opportunity to testify today. Our Chairman is also is out of town and is unable to be here, George Logan, but we will be submitting in writing his testimony.

We don't see this just as a mere exercise, but rather as an opportunity for the Commission to update the Legislature on its Legislative and outreach activities and work with the Legislature towards common objectives.

The Commission is a State Legislative agency that's been around for about, I think, five or six years, and it works on influencing policy initiatives and legislation affecting the socioeconomic status of African Americans in the State of Connecticut.

Over the years, the Commission has been a strong advocate in the areas of education investment, affordable housing, environmental justice, civil rights, healthcare education, equity in the criminal justice system, and promoting minority business in the State.

In regard to legislation overall last year, the Commission commented on over 40 Legislative initiatives, on all public policy matters impacting the African-American community through testimony and letters of support at public hearings and public forums.

This Legislative Session, the Commission will continue its advocacy efforts, supporting the funding of key human service programs along with other initiatives pertinent to African Americans.

The Commission has been equally proactive in its outreach activities aimed at providing information and creating awareness on issues impacting African Americans.

Last year, the Commission organized a number of events. One titled the State of Black Connecticut, held in June, assembled a panel of experts in the various policy areas.

The intention of this form was to provide valuable information and facts on the status of the African-American community in the State. This is followed by a Public Health Conference the Commission held in the fall, titled Roadmap to Health.

As some of us here are aware, historically, as a group African Americans suffer disproportionately from a variety of illnesses.

And diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular illnesses are common in African-American populations and are partly responsibly for the higher mortality rate for African Americans.

We're often asked what's the worst thing that's occurring to African Americans in the State, and basically I say health.

They say, why health, and I say because if you're dead you don't worry about whether you have a job or whether your kids are getting educated.

If one were to look at the statistics that are in our annual report or one of our annual reports that's actually inside your packet, you'll notice that African Americans in the State of Connecticut are somewhere in the area of those five diseases I talked about.

We're almost double most of the other ethnic groups. So if you're not alive, it doesn't matter if you have a job or your kids have an education.

One of the things that the Commission did, especially in the light of the fact that all of our budgets are our Commission's and other Commissions in the last two years have had their operating budgets significantly cut, that we made a real effort in the last year to start applying for grants to try to improve our ability to get the word out and get information out.

We applied to Center for Disease Control for a public support grant and we were given a $16,000 grant to do the Roadmap to Health Conference, which was held in the end of October of 2004.

We were able with that money to use nationally recognized speakers for the event, who were both informative and help us to really kind of expand our policy perspective.

Because I know oftentimes I come before the Legislature and I talk a lot of statistics, but we're dealing with the reality.

And the reality is that black folks in the State of Connecticut are dying. And so one of the things we need to do is not just set the framework, but also what can we do to improve the quality of life in our community.

Another area that we're really excited about is the self-production of local cable access programming to increase the Commission's visibility, but also to inform the public on how policy decisions are made at the State government level that potentially impacts our communities.

This is especially important because a lot of people are just are not aware of the things that impact their daily lives.

We call it the AAAC Update, and we've actually fully developed and produced, by our staff, on such topics as criminal justice, health disparities, voter empowerment, economic and community development.

To date, we, in fact, have produced eight programs, and those eight programs have been basically in a rotation to all the ten cable access. So as we do one, we send it to another one and we do it like that. It's our hope to do another four before the end of the year.

In addition, the Commission maintains partnerships and coordinates with other advocacy groups in the State in promoting its policies and initiatives.

Some of the notable groups the Commission is involved is One Connecticut, DemocracyWorks, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Criminal Justice, and Multicultural Health Advisory Commission.

Of course, this list is not exhaustive. There are many other organizations and working groups the Commission is engaged with.

Moving forward, the Commission will continue to build new alliances and partnerships to further promote the well-being of African Americans.

And I think what we'd also like to do is start just not going the information sharing, but also starting to really make an impact and create some of the liaisons that I think some of the other commissions that have been around a little longer have been, in terms of creating partnerships with people in our community.

In that light, we, even as a Commission, have started going out to the community outside of this Capital and going out and having monthly meetings on occasion in the outer community.

I would like to thank you for your attention. There's a number of things, and I know we're scheduled to also sit in with your subcommittee, but if anyone has any questions.

Oh, and by the way, it's, I think it's $.60 per dollar for African-American women. It clearly is an issue.

REP. MERRILL: We'll have to work on that. Any questions from anyone at this point? Yes, Representative Walker?

REP. WALKER: Can you just tell me what you're looking for in your budget and what you are allocated and what you are looking for?

VANESSA BURNS: What we were allocated was the amount, and the only change for next fiscal year was an additional $15,000 to be able to pay for something that was a requirement for us to do.

But just like the other commissions in the last two years, what happened, I think it was two years ago, there was a cut in operating funds in half, so other operating, which allows you to pay for funding and for forums and stuff like that, went from $71,000 to $39,000.

I think all the commissions and ourselves are in a position of having to do with less, so what we did, as a result of that, and I think the other commissions have done it as well, is we literally have to go out and try to match dollars with events.

So in other words, we went out and got the money from CDC, but that can only be utilized for health issues. It can't be utilized for other things. The only thing is the Classic Awards. We raised the money for that as well.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. We appreciate the work you do and the fact that you've gone out and got private funding. Very commendable, all the commissions, so thank you.

Next we have Diane Yanetta.

DIANE YANETTA: Good evening, Representative Merrill and distinguished Members of the Joint Committee on Appropriations. My name is Diane Yanetta. I'm the Executive Director of the Judicial Selection Commission and with me is Commissioner George Crevta.

In 1986, the Judicial Selection Commission was established by Constitutional Amendment, to recommend both new candidates and incumbent judges for nomination by the Governor.

The Governor can only nominate persons from the Commission's lists. The Connecticut Constitution provides that all judges of the Superior, Appellate and Supreme Courts are appointed by the General Assembly upon nomination by the Governor.

Each judge is appointed for an eight-year term and must be re-nominated and reappointed for additional terms or movement to a higher court.

Most of the investigations of the Judicial Selection Commission are confidential by Connecticut General Statute.

For attorneys who'd like to become judges, the process begins with an application prepared by the Commission and filled out by the attorney.

The Commission investigates the candidate and finally the candidate has a confidential interview with a 12-member panel of Commissioners.

After the interview, the candidate is either recommended or not recommended for judgeship. The names of the candidates who are recommended for judgeships are put on a list for the Governor.

The Commission considers legal ability, confidence, integrity, character and temperament for incumbent judges seeking reappointment or elevation.

There is a judicial evaluation report for incumbent judges seeking reappointment. This survey is a result from attorneys and jurors who have been exposed to specific judges during a certain period of time, approximately two and a half years.

This survey is a report of judges' performance information. Most incumbent judges are recommended for reappointment.

We have a very small budget. We do need an increase of about $10,000 for equipment. Our equipment is old, and the computer, the printer, the copy machine, which was down, so I couldn't copy anything today and it's just very old. The typewriter, I think we got it in 1987, so it tells you [inaudible] we need a new one.

REP. MERRILL: Where are you housed? You have an office? Where are you housed? Where is your office?

DIANE YANETTA: State Office Building right across the street. In fact, we have two offices because we have all our files locked up on all our judges and all our candidates, and we needed another enormous office. It's all under lock and key, and so are we under lock and key. Cameras at the door, you know.

REP. MERRILL: Well, it sounds like a worthy cause. I don't like to think of you over there with that typewriter, so we'll see what we can do. Yes, Senator Harp has a question.

SEN. HARP: I probably shouldn't do this because it doesn't have much to do with your budget, but do you do all of the people who are being reappointed for a judgeship as well your selection commission?

DIANE YANETTA: Yes, we do.

SEN. HARP: If someone passes your Selection Commission, we can assume that at least the majority of the people are on your Commission thought that they had the temperament to sit as a judge, looked in much more detail than we do in their past history as a judge--

DIANE YANETTA: --Absolutely.

SEN. HARP: --so that once they've cleared through you folks, they've already had to go through a pretty stringent evaluation.

DIANE YANETTA: Yes.

SEN. HARP: Okay, thank you.

DIANE YANETTA: You're welcome.

REP. MERRILL: Anyone else? Representative Kirkley-Bey?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Yes, good evening. How many people are there on the Judicial Selection Committee?

DIANE YANETTA: There are 12 members.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: How many of them are women, how many of them are colored?

DIANE YANETTA: It varies because they change every three years.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: What are they right now?

DIANE YANETTA: Right now, there are two women now and the rest men. More men than women--

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: And none of color--

DIANE YANETTA: --right now, but that's not always the way.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: And none of color?

DIANE YANETTA: No, we have a man of color, but not a woman.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Do you know his name?

DIANE YANETTA: Reverend Streets.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Reverend Streets. To piggyback on the question that was asked by Senator Harp, if someone has got through the Judiciary Selection Committee and has passed the test, should I automatically assume or that person automatically assume that there's a possibility that they could become a judge?

DIANE YANETTA: Well, they're on a list and the Governor can pick from that list, but we select people, you know, it's a merit selection, so that they are qualified to be judges.

But then the Governor has to select from the list, and she has 45 days to select from that list and then the list isn't good anymore and then we add names to that list. We don't subtract. We add on, so that everybody gets their chance.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I just need to have you clarify one thing. You said the list is good for 45 days--

DIANE YANETTA: --Yes.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: --from the point in time--

DIANE YANETTA: --from the time I take the list over to the Governor, 45 days. It's dated and it's good for 45 days.

If the Governor does not make an appointment within that 45 days, she has to ask for another list and the list doesn't eliminate the previous names on the list, but it adds new names of people that we have interviewed in the interim.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.

DIANE YANETTA: You're welcome.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, oh, yes, I'm sorry, Representative O'Neill?

REP. O'NEILL: It's my understanding though that after a certain period of time after someone's been approved by the Commission, their name does drop off the list--

DIANE YANETTA: --No.

REP. O'NEILL: Never?

DIANE YANETTA: No. We've tried to pass bills to that affect that there should be a ten-year limit and then they would like to be, maybe be reevaluated or reapplied, but there is no timeframe now. They just stay on the list. Since 1987.

REP. O'NEILL: So until someone passes away [inaudible

DIANE YANETTA: Then somebody has to tell me or it doesn't come off the list.

REP. O'NEILL: So there's no chance in appointing anybody who's passed away.

DIANE YANETTA: Well, if they pass away and I know about it, they're off the list.

REP. MERRILL: Yes, Senator Harp has one more question.

SEN. HARP: How long is the longest a person has been on the list?

DIANE YANETTA: Since 1987, the longest person.

SEN. HARP: Oh, so you weren't kidding--

DIANE YANETTA: --no, I'm not, no, that's the truth. Still on the list.

REP. MERRILL: Anyone else? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. We'll work out that typewriter.

DIANE YANETTA: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Next we have James Papillo.

JAMES PAPILLO: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is James Papillo, the State Victim Advocate.

I've submitted written testimony, which really is a proposal for expansion of the OVA, and I'd be happy to address any questions you have with respect to that. I do have an opening statement.

The State of Connecticut has and continues to make great strides in the area of victims' rights.

As a result of the victims' rights movement seen in American jurors' prudence over the last two decades, Connecticut has joined almost every other state in enacting laws intended to provide a means for crime victims to effectively participate in the criminal justice system and to require that victims concerns are addressed by all professionals within the criminal justice system.

The principal objectives of such laws have been primarily twofold. First, to promote respect for crime victims, including their safety, their privacy, and the interest they have in seeking justice.

Second is to foster administrative and judicial sensitivity to the difficulty experienced when crime victims are unexpectedly drawn into an often indifferent, but always confusing, criminal justice system, often at the very time they're trying to cope with injury and personal loss.

In Connecticut, those objectives were served in 1996 when Connecticut voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Victims' Rights Amendment to our State Constitution.

Connecticut's Victims Rights Amendment affords crime victims the same protection and status of rights provided to those accused of committing crimes.

These constitutional rights, along with the many other statutory rights afforded Connecticut citizens who become victimized by crime, represent a formal acknowledgement on the part of our State lawmakers that crime victims have an important participatory role in Connecticut's criminal justice system.

Subsequent to incorporating victims' rights into our State Constitution in 1996, our State lawmakers have continued to demonstrate their strong support for and commitment toward protecting and expanding the rights of crime victims in Connecticut.

For example, sensing the need for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the enforcement of victims' rights in Connecticut, our Legislature in 1998 created the Office of the Victim Advocate to help enforce, protect, and further crime victims' rights in our state.

I was appointed by the Governor in 1999 as the State's first victim advocate. Now the State's victim advocate has brought authority to, among other things, monitor the provision of services to crime victims by State agencies and private entities, to receive and investigate victim complaints regarding their treatment by the criminal justice system, to intervene in court proceedings, to advocate for victims' rights when their rights have been violated, and to make recommendations to the Legislature, victim service providers, and criminal justice professionals for changes in State polices and laws to help further and protect victims' rights in Connecticut.

Now the OVA's independence from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of government is a vitally important feature of the office, one that is necessary for achieving satisfactory results from agencies and providing redress for crime victims.

If the victim advocate is to be effective, he or she must be able to criticize in appropriate situations governmental agencies, officials, public employees and other professionals involved in the criminal justice system.

The need for independence is readily apparent given the victim advocate's broad oversight jurisdiction, which includes all crime victims, crime justice agencies, victim service providers and victim advocacy groups.

The public has responded enthusiastically to the creation of the OVA. Since its inception, OVA clients have sought and received a variety of OVA services, including information, support, investigation, and in-court advocacy. The OVA has received strong support from Connecticut lawmakers.

The OVA has worked effectively with many members of the Connecticut General Assembly on Legislation to further and enhance victims' rights in Connecticut.

I won't go through the laundry list, but we've had some very significant laws passed. Some are actually first in the country.

For example, we're the first state in the country to require judges in courtrooms throughout our state to advise crime victims of their rights at all arraignment proceedings.

We have since seen two other states around the country, Florida and Arizona, who have adopted laws modeled after the Connecticut law.

We've enhanced significantly restraining and protective order penalties. We've investigated some highly high-profile cases with respect to domestic violence.

And we've done a lot of work in terms of investigation, as well as getting laws changed and working with victims on an individual basis.

We average about 900 calls or complaints, actually, a year, and our agency is extremely small. In fact, in the audience is my agency, and her name is Merit Lajoie.

And I'll ask Merit if she would stand up. And between her and I, we cover the State, we cover the broad mandates that we have and what we're seeking from the Appropriations Committee.

I want to thank the Governor because the Governor has responded to some extent in terms of increasing our other expense dollars over the next two fiscal cycles.

However, we do need additional staff in order to carry out our mandates. And what I propose and what you have in front of you is a proposal to increase the staff by three individuals.

And I think we desperately need to grow if we are to be there for victims as they expect and want us to be.

Then we're going to have to be a bigger agency than two individuals in order to cover the state, in order to address the problems not only on individual cases, but systematic issues that crime victims in our state experience.

And I thank you for the opportunity for testifying. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to address them.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. I just wanted to ask one initial question. Is it true that in every courthouse in the state there is some kind of victim services office, either a nonprofit or otherwise?

JAMES PAPILLO: Yeah, well, the Office of Victim Services, which is a Judicial Branch agency, has a quadri of court-based victim advocates, but their job and their charge is different from ours.

REP. MERRILL: Okay, thank you. Yes, Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Jim. Just one question. Do you have a typewriter?

JAMES PAPILLO: Actually ,we do have a typewriter.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Is it working well--

JAMES PAPILLO: --we don't use it all that much, so maybe could strike a deal.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Anyone else? Representative Kirkley-Bey?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Hi, Jim.

JAMES PAPILLO: Hi, Representative.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I would just like to say I have a group of women who meet at the Community Center of which I'm Executive Director.

I don't have a question, but I called Jim and he came to my office, and he explained to me what his role is.

And at that time, when I was speaking to him, this group of women and men are the parents who have lost children to random acts of violence through no fault of their own, and he explained a host of things to me.

And then he brought to my attention, not only did he talk the talk, but he has also marched in Hartford with Hope Street Ministries, which is affiliated with my Community Center on acts of crime.

He dropped of a host of packets to me the next day, and he's offered to come into one of the toughest areas in Hartford to speak to these women.

So I want to say I commend him for what he's doing, and to a degree, if I can be of help to you, I will because that's someone who puts his money where his mouth is.

JAMES PAPILLO: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. I just wanted to announce there is overflow room capacity in 2E because we're getting full around here, so it's the next room over. Okay. Next we have Randy Braren.

RANDY BRAREN: Good evening, Representative Merrill, Senator Harp, and other honorable Members of this Committee. My name is Randy Braren. I'm currently a Senior Director with the Connection Incorporated. The Connection is a nonprofit human service and community development agency.

Although we're based out of Middletown, we provide services in communities throughout the State of Connecticut.

Criminal justice programming constitutes a significant portion of the work that we do helping to ensure that offenders, both adult and juvenile, receive services necessary to improve their lives and reduce recidivism, thereby improving the quality of life in the communities to which they return.

I am here today on behalf of the members of the nearly 100 member organizations of the Connecticut Association of Nonprofits that contract with the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch and the Department of Corrections to provide a wide array of alternatives to incarceration services in the community.

In this regard, my background is relevant. Prior to my current position with the Connection, I enjoyed a wonderful career of 23 years with the State Department of Correction and the Board of Parole, 19 years of which were in the field of parole and community services.

As a parole officer, I partnered with case managers and clinicians of Connecticut nonprofit agencies.

As a district parole supervisor, I depended on the expertise of these nonprofits to supplement the efforts of my officers in a variety of administrative capacities within the Board of Parole.

I relied on this same network of nonprofits to assist me in identifying gaps in services to parolees and victims, and to develop creative, cost-effective solutions to close those gaps.

In all of these roles, I've always considered my nonprofit counterparts to be true partners, fellow professionals working together to solve the problems facing our communities.

Last year the General Assembly addressed the issue of prison overcrowding in a comprehensive manner. [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to Tape 1B.]

--form are fully spent in this current fiscal year and annualized to continue the strategic investment into the next biennium.

It appears that the Governor's budget does not fully annualize funding to accomplish these goals.

Alternatives to incarceration prevent costly expenditures at the front end of the system, work to reduce recidivism and victimization, and provide reintegration supports for those returning to the community from prison.

The Governor's proposal includes a 4% COLA for many nonprofits contracted with the State to provide human services.

This is a wise investment strategy in that nonprofits provide very affordable services that the State would otherwise need to provide in a much higher cost. COLAs are desperately needed to meet staffing and business needs.

The Governor's proposal acknowledges the historic under-funding of nonprofits and we greatly appreciate that.

However, full indexing and 4.5% in fiscal year '06 and 4% in fiscal year '07 is necessary to prevent a further widening of the significant gap between nonprofit employees and State employees doing comparable work.

There are also concerns about tying COLAs to an uncertain federal source that is becoming increasingly controversial.

Also of great concern is that the Governor's COLA proposal leaves out all programs funded by the Department of Public Health and a number of programs funded by the Department of Social Services.

This omission will result in further inequities experienced by people working in Connecticut Social Service Network.

For example, one of the programs operated by the Connection is the Eddy Center in Middletown. The Eddy is a 40-bed facility, half of which is a residential AIC, the other half is a homeless shelter.

Separate funding streams support staff salaries. This means that staff assigned to the CSSD side will receive a COLA, while staff assigned to the DSS shelter side will not. This type of wage disparity can greatly affect staff morale, recruitment and retention.

It is, I suspect, an unintended consequence of partial COLA funding, but one that I hope you will remedy.

In closing, I urge you to support full funding of the prison overcrowding reforms of the 2004 section and full COLA indexing for all the nonprofits that partner with the State to do the work that improves the quality of life for Connecticut residents. Thank you for your time and your support.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions, anyone, comments? Okay. If not, thank you for your time. Next we have Yolanda Rivera.

SUSAN HOOVER: Representative Merrill and Senator Harp, thank you. I'm not Yolanda Rivera. We spoke to her and she intended to come and testify for the work of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, and I wonder if I could just say a word or two about what I think she might say and what part of our work she represents. I'll be extremely brief.

Yolanda Rivera is the Coordinator of the Hartford Construction Jobs Initiative, which trains Hartford residents to work in the construction trades in Adrian's Landing.

And they have contracted with the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women to conduct a training program that trains women to work in the construction trades and provides them with a career and with a well-paying job, and I think that they are extremely pleased.

This is the third year that they have funded us, and I think that she would say that she's very pleased with the work that we do on behalf of women that want to advance their careers. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Okay. Thank you very much. Questions? Oh, yeah, right there.

SUSAN HOOVER: I beg your pardon. My name is Susan Hoover and I'm the Special Projects Director at the State's Permanent Commission on the Status of Women.

REP. MERRILL: Representative O'Neill had a question?

REP. O'NEILL: That was my question. We knew you weren't Yolanda Rivera.

SUSAN HOOVER: Thank you. Thank you very much for your indulgence.

REP. MERRILL: Next we have Roland Boutin.

ROLAND BOUTIN: Good evening. My name is Roland Boutin. I'm a Nurse at Hartford Correctional Center, which is Correctional Managed Healthcare.

The relationship of the Department of Corrections with the University of Connecticut Health Center is as a contractor. They, in turn, put together Correctional Managed Health Care, which is the nursing and the mental health for Department of Corrections.

I'm here to talk about a very expensive problem in the Department of Corrections, and it's a serious shortage of nurses. The understaffing of nurses in Corrections has created serious over-dependence on voluntary overtime and mandatory overtime.

There are nearly 100 nurse vacancies in Correctional Managed Health Care, DOC. That's over 33% vacancy currently, and the number keeps growing every day.

To give you an example, when there aren't enough nurses to work the very next shift, which basically averages three to five times a week, we are forced to stay, mandated to work overtime, so that we're working up to 16 hours straight.

At other times, we volunteer to help out a coworker who may, in fact, have someone at home that's sick, a sick child, so that they themselves do not have to be mandated for the eight hours.

Department of Corrections and Correctional Managed Health Care is also hiring expensive pool or agency nurses. Basically, they're temporary nurses to fill everyday staffing shortages. That's when they can get them.

These agencies pay anywhere from $46 to $78 an hour, which is almost double what it cost for your own State employees. DOC's Correctional Managed Health Care is over-reliance on overtime and pool nurses to fill everyday staffing is a very expensive waste of State dollars.

In 2003, the State spent $6.1 million on voluntary and mandatory overtime and pool nurses to manage short staffing.

In 2004, the State again spent nearly $7.7 million on voluntary and mandatory overtime and also for pool nurses.

This is a dangerous downward spiraling. Excessive overtime is driving nurses away from working in correction facilities, and with fewer nurses on staff, there's more mandatory overtime. This, in turn, drives more nurses out of our facilities, and so on it goes.

Department of Corrections will claim their hands are tied, there's nothing they can do, because there's a nursing shortage in Connecticut.

Yet in the private sector, hospitals and healthcare facilities have found ways to hire and keep nurses to recruit and retain. Even now, when nurses are scarce.

Meanwhile, the DOC's approach is just pouring taxpayer dollars down the drain and it's not working. Instead of continuing this short-sided approach, we should invest in recruiting and retaining more nurses and reduce the use of expensive mandatory overtime and pool nurses for the long run.

The problem is only getting worse, so it is important to do something now to fix it. In the coming weeks, I and other District 1199 nurses working Correctional Managed Health Care, would like to work with you to develop ways we could do just that. Thank you very much.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. We are painfully aware of the nursing situation. And I'm not sure we've gotten to the bottom of the problem, but we are certainly willing to look for solutions.

And one of them probably is funding some of the programs where there are students who want to get into these nursing programs at the community colleges, and apparently we have waiting lists of people wanting to do it, so that's one thing. Yes, Representative Tercyak has a question.

REP. TERCYAK: Thank you very much. You mentioned that you see pool nurses coming in being paid at a higher rate than the Department's willing to pay its own nurses. Are they there on a regular basis? Specifically, is it usual five days a week to see--

ROLAND BOUTIN: --seven days a week, Sir.

REP. TERCYAK: Seven days a week--

ROLAND BOUTIN: --yeah, there is no five, it's seven days a week--

REP. TERCYAK: Ideally we'd like to get to the stage where our employees only have to work five days a week and don't get mandated to stay overnight for the sixth day and beyond.

So what I'm saying is we have opportunities where you can look at a spot being filled by an agency or pool nurse and know that a regular State employee nurse could be doing that job.

It's not just occasionally when the flu season comes. We're happy we have an agency to call for help. We're using it for regular staffing every day?

ROLAND BOUTIN: Yes, Sir, 100%, and that's a problem for the nurses that I work with daily, and also safety and security because they don't get the training to be in DOC facilities.

REP. TERCYAK: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Anyone else? Representative Walker?

REP. WALKER: Yes, good evening. First of all, did you give us copies of your testimony?

ROLAND BOUTIN: I'm going to say no.

REP. WALKER: Okay. The reason why I'm asking is one of the questions that I asked the Department of Corrections this morning was about the medical services. You're stationed at the correctional facilities themselves?

ROLAND BOUTIN: Yes, we're at all of the 19 or 20 correctional facilities in Connecticut.

REP. WALKER: Because the question I asked was they had an allocation of about $84 millions for healthcare, and what I thought I heard, they were contracting all of that to UConn for health services.

ROLAND BOUTIN: That's correct. That's the relationship and that's where Correctional Managed Health Care comes in.

REP. WALKER: That's where the Correctional Managed Health Care, but there must be another line item for the nurses that are at each one of the facilities, correct?

ROLAND BOUTIN: We are the Correctional Managed Health Care and the mental health workers. The actual information that you're asking, I don't really have. I'll be more than happy to research it and get it back to you.

REP. WALKER: Thank you. Nice to know. What's a pool nurse, by the way?

ROLAND BOUTIN: A pool nurse is someone who works for an agency. A long time ago there weren't a lot of pools in Connecticut because there was no nursing shortage.

What they ended up doing was they will pay them a premium. They can be called a traveling nurse, a contract nurse or a pool nurse. They will come in and fill the slot of a regular person.

The only problem is the amount of money that's being spent for their services and the working relationship. Being in corrections, as you can well imagine, there's some safety and security, we don't want to leave the doors open, that kind of thing.

The nurses from the pools, they don't really get a lot of training on what to do. They come, they perform a specific task, and then they're gone.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you, Representative Walker. We'll get to the bottom of it. I'm not sure I'm clear myself exactly how the money flows.

I think it must be UConn is the payer, but I'm not sure, so we'll get to the bottom of it in the work session. Yeah, we'll get that. Representative Kirkley-Bey?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I just have one question, Madam Chair. You say the pool nurses get somewhere around $48 an hour or higher. What is your hourly rate?

ROLAND BOUTIN: My hourly rate base salary is anywhere from $23 to $32, and that would be anywhere from an LPN to a correctional nurse to a correctional head nurse.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Other questions? Representative Tercyak?

REP. TERCYAK: Just to clarify, when you say the pool nurse gets $48 an hour, you're talking about how much the nurse comes in gets paid.

ROLAND BOUTIN: Right, that does not include agency fee.

REP. TERCYAK: Speaking as someone who works for a nursing agency, usually gets at least this much for their overhead and the other jobs that are involved in setting that person, so $48 is not what it's costing us to send a nurse onto the floor for an hour. That's all that that nurse is being paid. Thank you very much.

REP. MERRILL: Sounds like we've got to get to the bottom of it. Okay. Other questions? Representative O'Neill?

REP. O'NEILL: I believe it was Representative Walker was asking a question and I thought the answer related to for whom do you work. Are you working for UConn or the Department of Corrections?

ROLAND BOULIN: I work for Correctional Managed Health Care, which is part of the UConn Health Center, University of Connecticut. I do not work for Department of Corrections.

REP. O'NEILL: Okay, because I thought that's where Representative Walker was trying to get at and it seemed like we kind of missed there. That was it. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you for your testimony. Next is Sally Schenk.

SALLY SCHENK: Good evening and thank you for hearing us. I'm Sally Schenk, the Board President of Family ReEntry, a nonprofit agency that has been helping people in southwestern Connecticut leave the criminal justice system for about 20 years.

We think that if the State is to find meaningful solutions to the historically unprecedented incarceration rates that are not only crippling our state budget, but are wreaking havoc on the futures of families and children in the affected neighborhoods, we must develop a thoughtful, cost-effective plan.

As Commissioner Lantz stated in testimony at a public hearing just last year, offenders need to be discharged to something, something that will change lives and reduce and recidivism rates.

Family ReEntry is eager to help the State find a cost-effective solution and has proposed a pilot reentry program in Bridgeport.

We have already received a $150,000 of federal grant money for this project and must find an additional $150,000 to make this project feasible.

The results of this test program would provide the State with much-needed data and the confidence to develop a new, more successful approach to this problem of the terrible incarceration rates and high recidivism rates.

I would like you also to know that Family ReEntry is a great deal for the State. Over 50% of our budget comes from private funds. Our volunteer mentors do fabulous work.

We bring in federal funds, and we are passionate about solving this problem in the long term and the big picture, both for the State budget and for the people and neighborhoods whose futures are being sucked away by this issue.

We do need State help for this priority. We are very grateful for the State's funding of our successful youth mentoring program. Jesse participated in this program at the Manson Youth Facility in Cheshire, and Jesse would like to tell you a bit about his experience.

JESSE BURNEY: Good evening, Senator Merrill, I mean, Representative Merrill, Senator Harp. I've been involved with Family ReEntry now going on five years. I got introduced to the program, as stated in the statement, at Manson Youth Institution in Cheshire.

Since being released about three years ago, Family ReEntry has actually offered a number of their services in order to help actually where I am today.

The statement in which Executive Director Steve Lantz said that offenders need to be discharged to something is very true. I can attest you firsthand, especially the neighborhood in which I grew up in.

Seeing people being released back into their communities into the same, you know, thing that they actually left, try to leave, try to avoid or try to escape from.

In not having those services or no programs in which to better themselves, Family ReEntry comes in and they offer a number of great services in which help me to continue my strive to do better and to be productive, not only in help for job search, but other programs such as anger management and other skills.

They've been there through every step of the way, actually going as far as taking me to job interviews and taking me around to fill out applications for different jobs.

And the counselor's there when I feel like situations are arising that it's becoming a bit of a problem, overwhelming, so to speak, having someone to talk to encourage and to remind me my importance to my family as well as to the community in which I live in.

Today I'm proud to say that I'm a manager of Spring Printing Company. I just got married, and me and my wife are expecting our first child, so I'm happy about that.

But just to have an organization in which to instill dreams in which I had when I was younger, but throughout the course of life began to die, so to speak, or sleep, just to have a group of people coming to the correctional facility and volunteer to come into the correctional facility, offer their time and sit down and speak and deal and talk with me, just blew my mind.

Just that alone made me sit down and realize that, wow, these people are really taking their time out to come and sit down and talk to me and figure out what it is that's available out there for me, to help me so I will not find myself in these situations again. It's tremendous.

I'm here to tell you today that this program, this group, this group of people, it really works. Not only on myself, but I've met other people that's been involved with Family ReEntry throughout these years and it really works.

They're doing a great job. They've done a great job, and I'm very, very satisfied with the services that I've received there. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Great. Thank you very much, and congratulations. Yes, go ahead?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Are you registered to vote?

JESSE BURNEY: I was registered to vote, but I moved from one city to the next and I have to update that information.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Please do. It's one of the services they should diverse.

JESSE BURNEY: Absolutely.

REP. O'CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just quickly, did you receive any job training as part of the ReEntry program?

JESSE BURNEY: Fortunately for me, I received most of my job training while I was incarcerated and so I didn't need that type of services.

REP. O'CONNOR: So, okay, very good. Are you still in the same trade that you learned while incarcerated?

JESSE BURNEY: It mixes because I was actually involved in a number of things when I was incarcerated throughout my time, and I'm actually using some of those skills in doing what I am today.

REP. O'CONNOR: Very good. Thanks.

REP. MERRILL: Yes, anyone else? Representative Feltman?

REP. FELTMAN: Yeah. Is there a model of this program already in place in Hartford or some other cities and what's been the success there?

SALLY SCHENK: I don't know one that is implemented down, which is not to say that I think there may be ideas on the books, but I don't know of another one that's implemented.

Not in the comprehensive nature that we're discussing, which would be beginning prerelease lasting six to nine months, comprehensive services where we can really work with people in depth. We know that's what helps.

Literature shows that that's true, and we would just very much help provide the State with that data so that you could make decisions with confidence about expanding those programs.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Yes, we'll talk about that in the work group, but I believe there are several other programs. I'm not sure if they're exactly the same as this one.

Anyone else? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. Very inspiring story. Next we have Mike Norman.

MIKE NORMAN: Good evening, Chairpersons, Senator Harp and Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriations Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this evening.

I am Michael Norman, Chairperson of the Legislative Action Committee of the Association of Retired Teachers of Connecticut, known as ARTC.

It is the largest organization of retired teachers in Connecticut, with a membership of about 10,000 members and it is also an affiliate of AARP.

The State Teacher's Retirement System is in trouble. Two years ago in 2003, the pension plan was under-funded by $3.2 billion. The State, rather than attempting to ameliorate the situation, lowered its contribution to the fund first to 69% and then the next year to 65%.

The under-funding is worse off than it was two years ago. It is now 60% of what it was. The Teachers Retirement System is now under-funded at $5.1 billion.

Today more money is going out to pay pensions than is being replaced by incoming funds. Within a very few years, teachers' pensions will be paid from the principal.

At that rate, the Teachers Retirement System will be so greatly under-funded as to lead to a disruption of it within a few years. This will alter the benefits that go to the retirees and especially those who are just entering the field.

Please let me remind the committee that the teachers are not under Social Security. Even if their spouses are covered, they will receive no benefits should those spouses die.

Even if the Teachers Retirement System were funded at 100% as determined by the actuaries, it would take 38 years before the system is financially healthy. Yet, once again, a Governor is recommending a reduction in payments to the fund to 67%.

I should say that the fund has never really been funded to the full amount as according to the actuaries. Should this happen, the chance of the TRS, the Teachers Retirement Service, ever recovering is highly unlikely. Your support for full funding will change all that.

As long as the funding to the Teachers Retirement System falls under the spending cap, this will continue to be an issue.

We're recommending a Constitutional Amendment that makes the Teachers Retirement System part of Connecticut's indebtedness as a positive solution.

I urge you to fully fund the Teachers Retirement System, and I urge you to guarantee the protection of that fund with a State Constitutional Amendment. Thank you very much.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions from anyone? Senator Cappiello?

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mike, thanks for coming to testify. I don't really have a question. I just wanted to say that this is the third time we've introduced the Constitutional Amendment.

Hopefully this year it will go through and we can finally start fully funding the pension fund, not just for the teachers, but for the taxpayers down the road. So thanks again for coming up to testify.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, thank you for your testimony. Next, Sharon Palmer.

SHARON PALMER: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, Members of the Committee. I'm Sharon Palmer, President of the AFT Connecticut.

We are a diverse 25,000-member AFL-CIO union representing of 14,000 or so of our members are involved with educational services, either in higher ed or pre-K-12 education as teachers and school support personnel. The other 10,000-plus are either State employees or healthcare professionals working in acute care hospitals around the state.

Let me begin by quoting from briefing material received last Friday, February 18^th, from our national organization, the American Federation of Teachers, regarding the federal '06 budgets.

For the first time since 1989, a person has submitted a budget that proposes to cut the overall education budget. The $56 billion budget requests represent a cut of $530 million or 0.9% below last year's funding levels.

Most programs are level funded or cut, including 48 programs, totaling $4.3 billion slated for elimination.

Some of the consequences of this budget proposal are that nearly three million children will not get help with reading or math and 1.7 million children will not have access to promised after-school programs.

It is against this backdrop that the Connecticut Legislature in our towns and cities will struggle to do their best managing a fiscal balancing act, which is extremely difficult, as we all know.

The added burdensome requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, while well-intentioned, will have further exacerbated local Board of Education budgets.

Quite frankly, I dread this year's local budget process because I know many of our towns and cities, as you know, neighbor will be pitted against neighbor, young versus old, and our poorest will be short-changed. As a local elected official, I face my own grueling set of budget hearings.

We urge you to squeeze all the funding you can to support pre-K-12 education and all other programs for children, which help them come to school prepared to learn.

If you look at ECS funding over the last 15 years, you will find the trend has been toward a smaller percentage of funding overall. We hope you will work with your colleagues on the Finance Committee to reverse this trend.

Quite frankly, the 2% overall proposal by the Governor is just simply not enough. You know that if you talk to your local elected officials.

Our union is part of CCJEF, which is the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding. We are anxiously awaiting the consultant's report and the opportunity to make major positive changes in the funding mechanism for education.

We also urge you to find a higher funding level, preferably 100%, for teachers' retirement. A 65%, as you know, is courting disaster, particularly when we have a huge bump in retirements coming.

If we had funded during the high-rolling years of the '90s, we would have been in much better shape. We hope you have some foresight moving forward to significantly improve.

We really know how hard your task is ahead. We just want to offer our help to work with you to try and make some adjustments to the budgets that are better for our cities and towns in the programs for children.

I just want to put in a small plug for our nurses. I listened to the discussion on short staffing and mandatory overtime. You have a mandatory overtime bill that needs to be improved.

We, with our nurses, suffer from not enough nurses, short staffing, mandatory overtime and pool nurses in every hospital in the State. Just a little plug. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you, Sharon, and we hear that and are going to try to address that. We know that we have to do more on education.

There was a forum today on the federal budget's impact in Connecticut, and I was looking at a figure that said Connecticut will lose, under this proposal, between 2006 and 2010, something like $850 million.

SHARON PALMER: Yes, I would believe that.

REP. MERRILL: For us to make that up is just unthinkable. So we'll do our best. Comments, questions? Representative Roy?

REP. ROY: You give us numbers 3 million children and 1.7 million children, but I assume those are national figures.

SHARON PALMER: Yes, they are. I, quite frankly, just received that information on Friday. I do not yet have a breakdown on how that might roll out for each state.

REP. ROY: Once you have those for Connecticut, could you pass them on to us?

SHARON PALMER: I certainly will.

REP. ROY: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Senator Cappiello, you had a comment?

SEN. CAPIELLO: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for your testimony. Just a quick question, and I don't know if we're getting this information from OLR or not or if the Chairs have it. Do you know how many of the states fund have bonding for the municipalities for their school construction projects?

SHARON PALMER: I do not.

REP. CAPPIELLO: Because I know we're trying to figure out, in comparison with other states, if they do or do not fund the school construction.

And I don't know that we get the credit, at least, for supporting municipalities with all the money that we give to them. I don't think a lot of other states do this. I could be wrong, but I guess we'll find out.

SUSAN PALMER: I'll try and get some information as well.

REP. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Yes, I believe you are correct, but I'm not sure the exact number, but we can find out from our laws. Representative Fleischmann?

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Sharon, thank you for your testimony. You'll find a lot of agreement from the Committee that 2% cost-of-living adjustment to the education cost funds does not help localities keep pace with the actual cost of education.

And I'm just wondering if you or folks you work with at AFT would have some sort of index for what the actual inflation rate in elementary and secondary education is like or if that's something you might be able to do.

SHARON PALMER: I can ask.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you.

SHARON PALMER: I'd be more than happy to work with you on these questions.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Representative Kirkley-Bey?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Hi, Sharon, how are you doing? I want to ask you a question. In Hartford, I believe there are 22 schools that are sitting on the failing list based on the Leave No Child Behind.

And the President, in infinite wisdom, has cut education across the board. And I thought one of the pieces of that bill was you could reconstitute a school or something like that and try to do something over to make it better.

But in the fiscal problem that we're looking at, I don't know what, if anything, or if anybody here around the circle knows, how do we help those schools that are failing to start to lift up the scores that we're facing all over the country, not just Connecticut.

SHARON PALMER: Absolutely, in every poor district, both urban and rural, across the country and the funding is not there.

Not only does the President not propose adequate funding, but Congress cut significantly what the President had authorized for spending. So it was a double hit and the money is not there to help those struggling schools improve. The resources are not adequate.

And we, of course, have our own budget situation here, so the likelihood that these schools are going to be able to pull out from under the sanctions of that Legislation are not good, quite honestly.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Other comments, questions? If not, thank you, Sharon.

SHARON PALMER: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Next we have Chris Bradley.

CHRIS BRADLEY: Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and Members of the Committee, I'm Chris Bradley, proud to be President this year of the Connecticut Library Association.

I want to tell you Representative Kirkley-Bey that anyone in this room can register to vote at his or her public library, so, you know, we're doing our best.

We have about 1,100 members of the Connecticut Library Association, and tonight I want to talk about four programs that we would like you to consider for increased funding this year.

They're Connecticard, our program of statewide reciprocal borrowing, the Connecticut Library Consortium, which is a buying cooperative of about 800 libraries, public, academic, school and special, public library construction grants, and the iCONN Digital Library of databases available for colleges, schools and public libraries.

First, I'd like to talk about Connecticard. This program is one which I think is often taken for granted.

It's been in existence since 1976 and it allows all State residents to use their hometown library card in any public library in the State. You can borrow books from any library, you can return to them to any library.

The State Library recently hired a consultant to compute the actual cost of a transaction of checking out a book to an out-of-town borrower and that cost is $1.05 per transaction, which would amount to $4.9 million to reimburse all the libraries.

The Governor proposes this year level funding for this program, which is $676,028, and that would reimburse libraries instead of at their cost of $1.05 per transaction of $.14 per transaction.

So what we're asking is to try to increase this amount of reimbursement over a five-year period and to begin in this fiscal year, 2006, by doubling the amount in the Governor's budget.

So we're asking for that program for $1,352,056, and then in the fiscal year 2007 budget, a total of $2,028,084 for a Connecticard.

The second program is a smaller program, but leverages quite a bit of municipal and state dollars by grouping libraries to get discounts on library materials, supplies, computer equipment, that type of thing.

It's called the Connecticut Library Consortium and it saved, last year, just the 190 public library members over $4.7 million in quantity discount for library materials.

The Governor proposes level funding for this program at $300,000 for each of the next two years. The Connecticut Library Association seeks, for the Consortium, an increase to $350,000 in fiscal year 2006 and to $400,000 in fiscal year 2007.

The third program is Public Library Construction. Since 1998, this program has been funded at $2.5 million per year. This year, the Governor has recommended a reduction to only $2 million for each of the next two years. The Association looks for $4 million in 2006 and $4.5 million in 2007.

The last program, very successful, iCONN, the digital library in every public academic school library, the Governor proposes $1,894,000 for each of the next two years, and we're asking for a modest increase to $2,095,000 in '06 and $2,395,000 in '07.

I would say we thank the Committee for the support we've always received from the General Assembly for libraries in the State.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions anyone?

CHRIS BRADLEY: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Next we have Harvey Carson.

HARVEY CORSON: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriation Committee. I am Harvey Corson, the Executive Director of the American School for the Deaf.

ASD has been a proud partner with the State of Connecticut for 188 years, providing appropriate educational programs and services for deaf and hard-of-hearing children, youth adults and their families in collaboration with the local school districts and other service providers.

We appreciate the past support from this Committee and we look forward to continuing working with you serving Connecticut's children in the 21^st century.

I'm requesting your support of Governor's recommendation for the appropriation for our school of approximately $8.6 million for the fiscal year 2006 and the same amount in the fiscal year of 2007.

This represents a sorely needed increase of $985,000 over the fiscal year of 2005 appropriation. This is the first significant increase that we'll have received in five years.

This funding will assist the school in addressing the ever-increasing cost of providing educational programs that meet the IEP, Individual Education Plan, requirements for students in the context of the reauthorized IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and No Child Left Behind.

This funding increase will help us to have the ability to recruit and retain qualified staff. ASD teachers, especially the new hires, are paid less than their peers in surrounding school districts.

All of our teachers must be appropriately trained educators who are certified and experienced educators related to deaf education, special education and/or content areas certification and proficient in sign language.

In the year 2005, what does ASD look like? We have evolved into a comprehensive educational center serving all kinds of students not solely as a residential school, but serving children and various programs including collaborations with the local school district all over the state.

This gives them a chance to realize their dreams and succeed in life. We currently have a service load of 466 students, clients, and both a center-based and a community based program.

Seventy-six percent of our students are Connecticut students. They're Connecticut residents and that represents service to 90 Connecticut towns.

It is our hope that you will support the Governor's recommendation and that you believe, as we do, that these will be dollars well-invested. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much for your testimony. Comments, questions? If not, thank you very much for coming in. We appreciate the work you do.

HARVEY CORSON: Thank you very much.

REP. MERRILL: Next we have John Lawrence.

JOHN LAWRENCE: Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, Senator Murphy, Representative Feltman, Members of the Joint Judiciary and Corrections Sub-Committee of the Appropriations Committee, and other Members of the Appropriations Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you this evening.

My name is John Lawrence and I'm a partner in the law firm of Shipman and Goodwin, and I'm the President of Greater Hartford Legal Aid, and a Director of the Greater Hartford Legal Aid Foundation, and a member of the Connecticut Bar Foundation.

I am speaking for Connecticut's Legal Aid programs tonight and for the Equal Access to Justice Coalition.

We ask you to add to the Governor's proposed budget and appropriation to the Judicial Department for funding and increase in legal services to the poor in Connecticut.

The gap between the need for legal representation among low-income families and individuals with civil law problems in Connecticut and the capacity of legal aid organizations to meet this need has reached unconscionable proportions.

A 2002 legal [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to Tape 2B.]

--in Connecticut each year face more than 279,000 civil law problems that require the assistance of a lawyer, and Connecticut's legal aid organizations currently have the capacity to handle only 15,000 of those, less than 1 in 18 legal issues.

A $6 million appropriation would help narrow this gap between need and services. It would increase Legal Aid's capacity by 6,000 cases per year, which would restore our program to the 1993 service levels that we provided.

Low-income people across Connecticut desperately need the representation and counsel of legal aid advocates.

Let me tell you about one of our great success stories. Carol's troubles began when her husband left her and her family. He was the principal breadwinner in the family and he left her with two children.

One of these children, Carol's seven-year-old son, Gerald, suffers from severe mental health problems. Carol was referred by a family services agency to one of Connecticut's legal aid programs when she ran out of money and found herself on the verge of homelessness.

In fact, many of the legal aid cases that we receive each year come from local service agencies whose clients need legal help that only lawyers can provide.

Difficulties have piled up on Carol. She had lost her full-time job because childcare providers wouldn't take on Gerald. He was just too difficult a child to handle.

She lost her job. DSS told her that she would be terminated from Time Limited Cash Assistance.

The Social Security Administration refused to provide her family with benefits based on Gerald's disability, and her landlord started eviction proceedings against her for the nonpayment of rent.

Carol had really nowhere else to turn to help her find her way out of this dilemma. One of our lawyers demonstrated to DSS that Carol's inability to obtain childcare for Gerald met State rules allowing extensions of benefits for people facing barriers to employment.

Our lawyer was able to convince Carol's landlord that because Carol would now have income, he should allow her to pay the back rent she owed and restore her tenancy.

Other Legal Aid lawyers were able to appeal her Social Security Administration's denial of benefits and help her obtain a thorough evaluation of Gerald's disability.

I'm very happy to report that Carol is now working at part-time job during school hours, Gerald is doing well, and the family is deeply relieved to be free from this threat of hunger and imminent homelessness.

There are truly tens of thousands of people in Connecticut who, like Carol, require legal aid to solve problems that threaten their fundamental well being.

Women seeking safety from domestic abuse, elder persons facing improper evictions, all of this is due to a lack of adequate legal services.

Please help us provide these desperately needed services to poor people of Connecticut. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.

I have seated here with me Pat Kaplan, who's the Executive Director of New Haven Legal Assistance Association, and Marvin Farbman, the Executive Director of Connecticut Legal Services, who will help me answer any questions that you may have.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions? Senator Murphy?

SEN. MURPHY: You stated that $6 million would restore you to the level that you were in 1993 and, you know, we've had a number of fights before this Committee over the years trying to maintain a very small state of appropriation through the bought grant system that you get now.

So obviously that hasn't been the reason that you've seen your funding decline. What's been the reason for the overall decrease in funding and, in turn, services that you provide since 1993?

JOHN LAWRENCE: We're very grateful for the bought grant program, but what has happened is that our expenses have escalated over the last 15 years, and we faced a flat funding source principally through the interest on Lawyers Trust Funds Accounts Program and the United Way, which are our principal benefactors.

SEN. MURPHY: I know you handle a range of different types of cases. Have you seen, over that time, certain cases and certain legal issues crowd out others or escalate over the years that you're now not able to handle as well?

JOHN LAWRENCE: Well, I'll take a stab at that, but Marvin or Pat obviously the better authorities on it. One of the things that we have seen is that our cases are increasingly complex.

They are family problems that have a lot of elements to them, usually drug abuse, possibly child or spousal abuse, mental illnesses often a part of them, so one of the big problems we face is very complicated family situations. Marvin or Pat, would you like to add to that?

MARVIN FARBMAN: I'm Marvin Farbman. I'm the Director of Connecticut Legal Services. The only thing I'd like to emphasize is that over this last ten years or so, we have seen a market increase in clients whose families have some kind of mental illness.

It's just remarkable. It's very difficult to fully explain. It just sits there as an imperial fact and that has put a special kind of pressure on our staff.

SEN. MURPHY: Thank you. Are there further questions? Representative Walker?

REP. WALKER: Good evening. Going on a little bit on what Senator Murphy was talking about, do you see a lot of your cases that are dealing with denial of services, the DSS? And if so, give me a percentage of how many you've been able to overturn if that's one of the cases.

JOHN LAWRENCE: I don't know that I can give you a percentage of how many were able to overturn. I would say this, that I think it's the vast majority of the clients who come see us complaining of an error in the DSS system.

The vast majority, we can straighten out, either through negotiating with the agency or appealing through the administrative appeal process or into court. Any bureaucratic agency is going to make mistakes and one of our jobs is to fix them.

REP. WALKER: I guess the reason I'm asking is I'm trying to figure out what the cost is for DSS to have to go through this if they had enough staff or if they were a little bit more lenient in their denials. Maybe that might save us some money. That's why I'm asking.

MARVIN FARBMAN: It's possible. I do think that any complicated bureaucracy is going to make mistakes, and it's important to have an agency to hold them accountable when they do.

SEN. HARP: Thank you. Are there further questions? If not, thank you very much. Our next speaker is Norma Diaz.

NORMA DIAZ: Good evening. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. My name is Norma Alejandra Diaz. I come from Honduras in Central America and the reason I'm here is because I'm supporting the funding for legal service assistance in New Haven.

I've lived in this country for ten years and I have two kids. My older son is 22 years old right now. The little one is 11 years old. I was married for five years here in the United States. I'm a victim for [inaudible] for domestic violence. My problems started between my little son, the 11-year-old, and my husband.

The reason why we started the program was because he believed discipline was to hurt kids. He would try to take away their clothes and take my kid naked out in the street when my kid did not want to follow the directions of my husband. For example, to make homework or simple things like that like everyone has in every home.

My husband tried to manipulate my kid, the little one to, if you don't do that, you have to go outside to the street without clothes because I'm the boss here, not you and Mama is working.

That happened many, many times, but my son don't tell me nothing because they are scared home alone and they don't know what happen about my reaction about it.

One day, my older son come to me and he explain to me what happens at home when Mama is working. He said we can't continue in this situation. That's why, let me explain.

Before, I'm alone here in this country, just living with my two kids and my family, which is my two kids and my husband. When that happened, my idea was just call to the police, 911, to see what's going on, what can somebody help me in that situation.

The police was very friendly with me and after he hear all of my story, he recommend me to call to the legal assistance because they understand my situation [inaudible] in United States.

It is not unusual for my situation to be in shelter or to go for social assistance or for receive food stamps or for receiving any kind support like citizen or permanent residency in the United States is possible to receive.

My condition was without that. I don't have nothing, one penny in the bank, nothing. My life has to be around my husband. But after the police tell me and suggest me on two occasions to go for legal assistance, I do that.

I call and that was in February 2002, was my first appointment, and always I say this is the reason why I am here, God bless me. God bless me for two things.

God bless me to bring me here to United States to start my life with my two kids, and the second reason why God bless me is to knock on my door at the right moment under my circumstance and that was legal assistance.

I work and continued day by day to try to survive with my kids. I have them part time working with elderly people right now, but this is my new life.

Before that happened, I received emotional support and professional support for legal assistance because my situation was day by day more and more problematic and nobody can help me.

I don't have money, what I explained before, and when I go the third time when the police tell me you have you to do something because this danger is for you and for your kids to live under this situation.

The attorney, Jane Grossman, was the person who opened the door for myself to my case. I proved to her how was my situation, economic, my low income at home, no work and two kids and one husband would push me every time when I come back home.

If you say something, if you open your mouth, you have to go out of this country because I'm citizen from this country and nobody can support you, nobody can believe you. It's much better if you close your mouth because I'm the man. I'm your husband and you have to accept everything I say.

After that, the circumstance was when I go to legal assistance and they believe in my story. They believe how was my situation, and they support me for all this time and let me say, if it's not for this possibility, I never can start my new life where this is right now.

My two kids, now they have after very deep depressed in my living day by day in this circumstance, they living like normal people, like normal kids. They're excellent backgrounds [inaudible], but that has happened only because somebody wanted to believe in my story.

Someone to open the door when I know the door and they help me, and that's happened because legal assistance exist in New Haven for families like me, for low income, for families like me with accent and no language, with families who try to start new life like everyone in United States, following the dream like you and like everyone here.

This is the reason why I am here, to say thank you to the society for this opportunity, and thank you also because legal assistance exists and believed in my case and support me and give me the opportunity to start again and now I am like you, a normal person.

I have my house, I pay bills, I pay my taxes, everybody believe in myself, I believe in everybody, and I know everything is possible. It sometimes is hard, but it's possible. This is my story. Thank you.

SEN. HARP: Thank you so much. Are there questions? If not, thank you. And thank you, Pat Kaplan, for the good work you do at New Haven Legal Assistance.

REP. MERRILL: Next we have Carolyn Levinson.

CAROLYN LEVINSON: Good evening, Representative Merrill and Senator Harp, Members of the Committee.

My name is Carolyn Levinson and I'm on the Board of Directors of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Connecticut.

We are the Connecticut affiliate of the nation's leading grassroots family and consumer organization dedicated to improving the lives of people with serious mental illnesses and their families. I'm also the daughter of a father with serious mental illness and a researcher in the field.

I'm here today to talk to you about the need for alternatives to incarceration for persons with mental illness who can be safely and appropriately rehabilitated in the community.

According to date from the Department of Corrections, the prison population of people with mental illnesses has risen from 2,200 people in the year 2000 to 3,100 people in 2004, an increase of 40%. The 2004 population now represents 16% of the total prison population, up from 12% in 2000.

At the same time, that incarceration of people with mental illnesses has been increasing. The overall prison population has been decreasing. These disproportionate of increases are attributable to a deteriorating state mental health system.

Department of Corrections officials maintain that many of the individuals in prison for nonviolent crimes with serious mental illnesses could safely live in the community if they had housing and services.

Instead of providing these supports, we spend approximately $44,000 per person per year to keep people incarcerated.

Providing support of housing costs the state $13,000 per person. Simple math shows us that we could save $31,000 annually per person by providing appropriate supportive housing

Additionally, alternative community support services would be eligible for 50% reimbursement under the Federal Medicaid Rehabilitation Act option.

So not only would reduction in the number of prison beds lead to cost savings for the prison system over time, but cost per services would also be covered.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the human face of the problem with lack of alternatives to incarceration of the people with serious mental illness or any mental illness.

Attached to the copy of my testimony that was distributed today is the written testimony of another [inaudible] member. She recounts the story of her son, a young man with schizoaffective disorder, who has fallen victim to an inadequate system of mental healthcare.

As her testimony points out, the 1,500 AIC beds and halfway house openings currently available in Connecticut are not available to persons with psychiatric disabilities.

Her son's experience with the services that are currently offered in the community demonstrates poignantly the shortcomings of a housing system that was not designed to meet the needs of people with psychiatric disabilities.

He lost his housing and ended up in the prison system due to a series of events that, I'm sure, are not unique to his case.

The Lieutenant Governor's Mental Health Cabinet Report states that people with serious mental illnesses, especially those with co-occurring substance abuse disorders, are more likely to be incarcerated for minor offenses and to serve longer sentences.

These problems are again related to the lack of community alternative to adjust our complex housing and mental healthcare needs.

The report provides recommendations for coordination between [inaudible] and the Department of Corrections, along with adequate provision of properly trained support staff that will help eliminate prison recidivism.

On behalf of more than 1,000 members of NAMI Connecticut and their families, friends, and supporters, I urge you to consider funding a sensible solution-oriented system of care that will save the State money and provide sustainable care for people with serious mental illness. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much for your testimony. I want to say that I have followed the case. Karen Zimmer is the woman you're referring to. I've known her son since he was quite young, actually, and followed the case.

It's absolutely tragic what has happened in that circumstance, and I think it's unconscionable that we have not done more about this problem. We're looking closely at the report and wish we could do more, but we're going to try, so thank you. Anyone else? Next we have Lou Pepe.

LOUIS PEPE: Representative Merrill, Senator Harp and Members of the Committee, my name is Louis Pepe. I'm an attorney here at Hartford, and I'm the President Elective of the Connecticut Bar Association, and I thank all of you for the opportunity to appear here this evening.

I have previously prepared and submitted written testimony and I will not take your time to read that tonight.

I would like to take a moment, if I may, to just emphasize a few points of that testimony, which was submitted on behalf of the Connecticut Bar Association, which has authorized me to appear tonight to speak in favor of a modification to Governor's proposed budget and in favor of Senate Bill 1074, which would supplement that budget by adding $6 million to support legal aid services.

As I indicated, the Connecticut Bar Association has gone through its designated procedure to authorize me to speak on behalf of the authorization in support of that modification.

***

I think, as everyone can appreciate, access to our civil justice system is fundamental to our society and the civil justice system only works if everyone access, including, perhaps especially including, the least fortunate and the least advantaged among us.

Right now, Members of the Committee, that's not happening. It's not happening because, not withstanding the very best efforts of the hardworking conscientious lawyers and paralegals in the legal aid organizations, they simply cannot come close to opening and handling the number of cases that demand their attention.

The primary source of funding for those hardworking lawyers and professionals is, of course, the interest on Lawyers Trust Account and that does not provide nearly enough funding to provide the legal aid services we need.

Connecticut is only one of seven states that does not supplement IOLTA, which is the primary funding organization, and we're here to ask you to consider to change to that system.

We believe that unless and until the budget includes to some supplement to IOLTA for legal aid services, the legal aid organizations in the State will not be able to meet the needs of the people, the disadvantaged, the poor in the State that need your services, such as the young lady who testified two persons before me.

I hope you will give our application serious and full consideration. I recognize that there are many, many worthy causes competing for your attention and for the limited resources you have available.

I hope after considering my remarks and my testimony and those of others who will testify tonight, you will conclude that the amendment to supplement financial support for legal aid services is one deserving of your consideration.

I thank you again for the time to appear and if there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Senator Harp has a question?

SEN. HARP: Okay, you know, I was a little curious. You said 43 states provide supplement to the IOLTA funding or through Legislative Appropriations or through court fees or funds. Do you have a list of those states and the various mechanisms that they use to supplement the IOLTA offending?

LOUIS PEPE: I don't have that breakdown on the various methods that are used, Senator, but we will make a point to get it for you and submit it, if I may?

SEN. HARP: Okay. Thank you very much. It would be very helpful to the Committee if you would provide that for us.

LOUIS PEPE: I would be glad to. I'm sure we can get that breakdown. I feel confident we can and will submit it.

SEN. HARP: Thank you.

LOUIS PEPE: Thank you again for the opportunity to appear.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Next is Victor Muschell.

VICTOR MUSCHELL: Senators Harp, Murphy, Representatives Merrill and Feltman, and Members of the Appropriation Committee, my name is Victor Muschell and I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you.

I practice law in Torrington, and I'm President of the Connecticut Bar Foundation. And in support here of the Equal Justice Coalition with me tonight is Sandra Klebanoff, who is the Executive Director of the Bar Foundation.

We're here on behalf of the Foundation in support of the Equal Acts of Justice Coalition. And we at the foundation are in favor also of an amendment to the budget to include an additional $6 million to help provide a needed level of legal services to the poor.

As you may know, the Bar Foundation is designated by law and by judicial rule to receive the interest earned on lawyers trust accounts.

That money, about $8.5 million in the year 2004, is earmarked with very few minor exceptions for legal services to the poor.

Though significant, those dollars provide little more than 60% of the current level of legal services.

The service providers represented here tonight must obtain the balance of their current budgets through other sources, fundraising, United Ways, I think the block grants were mentioned, and other sources of income.

But what is significant and what brings us here tonight is what the current level of funding from all sources doesn't address.

That is the vast unmet need for legal help disclosed by the UConn Center for Survey Research and Analysis in a study that was commissioned by the Bar Foundation. I believe you have a copy of that.

It tells us that 90% of the poor's legal problems are not being addressed despite the untiring efforts of the legal service providers, the Bar Foundation, the Connecticut Bar Association and others.

The reason is clear. There are insufficient funds to meet massive needs. The Foundation recognizes the State's difficult budget issues and is mindful of the Governor's and the Legislature's financial limitations.

But when we here wrestle with daunting economic challenges, we can be assured those challenges fall far heavier on those before the poverty line.

It is for this reason that the Foundation believes additional funding is critical at this time.

It's unseemly that Connecticut, one of the wealthiest states in the nation, is one of only seven that does not provide direct funding of some sort to provide legal services to those unable to pay for them.

We ask for your help in meeting the needs of all citizens by supporting the addition of $6 million to the budget for the purposes I have mentioned.

I'd like to ask Sandy Klebanoff to just add to that. If you would, Sandy?

SANDY KLEBANOFF: Thank you. Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, Senator Murphy and Members of the Committee, I am the Executive Director of the Connecticut Bar Foundation and we have administered the interest on lawyers trust accounts programs since its inception in 1987.

You asked the question earlier of the 43 states that do have State appropriations. I would be happy to provide that information to you.

I just want to let you know who the seven are, the other six. We are with Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Wyoming, the infamous list of seven. And I'm really here this evening to ask you to please remove us from that list. It's not very good company in which we find ourselves.

All 43 of the other states have found a way to give some appropriation and it's incredible to me that in a state this wealthy, with so many poor people and 279,000 cases of unmet need, that we are able to only provide funding for fewer than 100 lawyers.

And I also want to make the point that these are not highly paid lawyers. The entry level salary for a legal services lawyer in Connecticut is somewhere in the neighborhood of $34,000 a year. Most of administrative assistants in Connecticut make more money than that.

I also want to let you know that the Bar Foundation is probably the most efficient act in town.

We administer the IOLTA program for slightly more than 5% and it would take very little for us to add the $6 million and also to administer that. And I'm happy to answer any questions also.

REP. MERRILL: Yes, thank you very much. Senator Murphy?

SEN. MURPHY: Thank you for your testimony. If this money was to somehow be added on to the current IOLTA mechanism for funding, what legal services organizations would that then cover?

I assume it's the organizations we traditionally think of as our legal services organizations, but I imagine it would also cover some other groups that provide services to the poor.

SANDRA KLEBANOFF: Connecticut Statute is very limiting, and I think it serves the poor people in Connecticut quite well. There are eight nonprofit organizations that are currently receiving funding through the IOLTA program and our board meets and makes sure that any applications for funding do meet the statutory requirement.

It would be our assumption that any organization that qualified for IOLTA would also qualify for Equal Access to Justice funds, and in so doing, we would be able to not require separate applications. It would be actually a relatively simple process to administer.

We also do report to the Judicial Department. Currently, we monitor our grantees and the same situation, I would assume, would be true.

SEN. MURPHY: But is it safe to say that IOLTA money and the addition added to that is going to fund organizations to the extent of their work providing legal representation to the poor in that they may have other things that they do, but do IOLTA money could be used for other activities outside of legal representation.

SANDRA KLEBANOFF: Our Statute has only two purposes. It is to go for legal services to poor through nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is the provision of legal services to the poor.

So an organization that has another goal, but may have a side purpose of providing legal services does not qualify and our board has been very clear about that. We've funded three main legal services here. You've heard from two of them, well, actually all three of them.

Then we have five much smaller programs, one that deals primarily with AIDS, another with people with mental health problems, and the other three primarily with children with their legal needs.

VICTOR MUSCHELL: We've denied funding to groups on occasion that didn't meet the criteria set forth in the Statute.

SANDRA KLEBANOFF: There is a small percentage of the IOLTA dollars that, by Statute, goes to Connecticut students who attend law schools in Connecticut and qualify for scholarship assistance, but I think it's $200,000 out of $8.5 million.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Senator Harp?

SEN. HARP: I have a question that sort of comes to mind as I looked at the lawyers that are seated behind you.

When you said $34,000, and so the question for me became how many people do you think you could hire beyond those that are just absolutely committed as lawyers for $34,000 a year, and I just wondered are there people waiting for those jobs?

Would they be full time? I know there are a few of you who are dedicated, but I guess from my perspective, I'm wondering why you're not asking that you have more money so that you can increase salaries.

I think that's a ridiculous salary for a professional who's had to go three years beyond college to get there and I know over time it goes up, but I think that's outrageously ridiculous.

I can't imagine that you're going to be able to attract many people to even cover the $6 million with that kind of salary--

VICTOR MUSCHELL: --I think it's obvious that the benefit that some of these lawyers get is far beyond what they receive in their paycheck. There's obviously some other satisfaction that they get, and Marvin, I think, would like to add to that.

MARVIN FARBMAN: Marvin Farbman and I'm the Director of Connecticut Legal Services.

One of the most remarkable things is that when we do hire there's always little anxiety. We're wondering, well, who's going to apply for this job that only pays so little? It is remarkable the applicant pools that we get, the applicants we get.

We get people from the very best law schools in the country, from Harvard, Yale, Cornell. We get people who really want to do this work.

On the other hand, all of our programs have set a goal to increase our salaries by a lot. It's just very difficult. The situation in Connecticut now is untenable. We have this incredible triage. We've got something like 86, 87 lawyers looking at 279 problems.

These are problems that really require a lawyer to solve them, so we have this imperative to get more lawyers hired, and we also have this imperative to pay our people a fair salary and so that's what we're trying to balance.

SEN. HARP: And I guess I think the thing that the Committee would be interested in if they're going to entertain this at all is how long it would take to sort of transition into this program, because you're not going to be able to hire these people immediately.

So, you know, it would be interesting for you to provide to our Committee what it really looks like. I mean, $6 million is a lovely number, but how long would it take for you to gear up to $6 million?

MARVIN FARBMAN: We would be more than happy to sit and meet with people and talk about how we might--

SEN. HARP: --well, I think there are serious questions that need to be answered--

SEN. MURPHY: --I just think, to add to that, given that this is going to be spread out over a number of organizations and given the incredible budget constraints that we have, I think just some rendering, which I'm sure exists very easily of how that money gets distributed and sort of as we look at different potential numbers, knowing, you know, exactly where that falls would be helpful.

VICTOR MUSHELL: Thank you very much. That would be helpful to us too. It would be our understanding that there'd be some legislation or some regulations that would also direct us how these funds are to be distributed.

REP. MERRILL: Okay. We'll be looking at that. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Thank you very much.

PATRICIA KAPLAN: Attorney Patricia Kaplan from New Haven Legal Assistance. The money is currently distributed to the three major legal services programs by the poverty population in the State of Connecticut, just to clarify. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Next we have Linda Blozie.

LINDA BLOZIE: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Linda Blozie and I'm the Associate Executive Director of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Thank you for accepting my testimony regarding the allocation of funding to Connecticut Legal Services, New Haven Legal Assistance and Greater Hartford Legal Aid.

I want to just make a quick comment before I start with my testimony. I don't know why they take that salary, but I am going to say that in the 20 years that I have been working in the field of domestic violence, I have enjoyed relationships with legal aid attorneys that began in 1986 and still continue this date.

So I want to stress that for them that these attorneys are not attorneys where there's a quick turnover, where they're here this year and the next year I'm working with another one and the next year I'm working with another one, because that is not the case with these attorneys that work at these various legal aid societies.

Each domestic violence program in Connecticut has a relationship with their local legal aid program and they have had this type of a relationship for years and years.

Legal services throughout Connecticut is so under-funded that in conjunction with the domestic violence programs, we have had to develop a well-refined system of referrals.

So that before any domestic violence advocate makes a referral to Legal Services Program, we screen each and every individual that might need legal services to ensure that we are only asking them to provide assistance to the neediest of what I consider to be already needy victims.

Yet I believe that all of our clients, all victims of domestic violence need legal support so that they do not have to remain in a violent situation.

Legal Services is so vital to those individuals that are living in poverty because they have no other option.

The following represents the circumstances when victims of domestic violence that turn to us for help also seek legal assistance, and when I say this, I am talking about the ones that we have worked with, have screened out and say, okay, we're going to try to ask legal assistance to help you.

If you notice that the circumstances that bring them to legal services have nothing to do with their own personal behavior, but yet someone else's behavior that's been inflicted upon them.

So we would refer to legal services when there are such circumstances as child custody issues, especially under the circumstances in which the abusive party brings an attorney to court.

When a victim needs help in keeping his or her housing or employment because the abuser's harassing behavior is creating problems for them.

When they have a problem involving their basic supports, for example, if there's a mistake with their tenant eligibility decision, if a child isn't getting the necessary medical coverage, or even if someone in the family is disabled and not getting federal assistance.

All of the above identified circumstances are serious issues, and I can assure that through the domestic violence programs, we are not turning to legal aid if someone simply needs a cut and dry divorce or a restraining order.

Those are circumstances for us that will have to wait for that victim. We really are only giving them the neediest of the needy.

But sometimes my experience has been that all a victim needs to move on in their life is rally the assistance of a good attorney, who can navigate and help them to navigate the legal system.

So tonight I would urge you to please consider allocating funding for legal services throughout Connecticut. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Representative Kirkley-Bey?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I just have a question. I know in February we used to have like dentists or eye doctors would do something to help you.

Are there any attorneys or group of attorneys that ever provide pro bono work to help with some of the cases that are not members of legal aid?

LINDA BLOZIE: Yes, there are, but, number one, they're very few and far between, and once again, kind of in the same fashion is that the issues that these attorneys are presented with are so complex that even if, now I know this doesn't happen, but even if they were only $100 an hour and they were doing it pro bono, you're racking up a bill of thousands and thousand of dollars.

Because what could happen is, and just give you an example, an abuser may go and just continually try to manipulate the courts and manipulate and drag this case on and on, so that it just continues to really rack up attorney's costs and time for no other benefit than control.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: But don't these attorneys have young interns who are studying the law under them that could probably benefit from some of this--

LINDA BLOZIE: --oh, I think in some cases they do, but I think that if I had to say who does pro bono verses who does legal services in the minimum of the cases, it's mostly legal services.

REP. MERRILL: Any other questions? If not, thank you for your testimony. Next we have Molly Rees Galvin.

MOLLY REESE GALVIN: Time is of the essence, I realize. Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, Senator Handley, and others in the group. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you briefly.

My name is Molly Reese Galvin and I am the President of Connecticut Community Care Incorporated.

Connecticut Community Care is a nonprofit statewide organization that provides community care services to elders and their families throughout the state of Connecticut.

And as some of you know, Connecticut Community Care is the largest subcontractor for the Department of Social Services, our Connecticut homecare program for elders.

I'm here this evening to speak, hopefully briefly and succinctly, on behalf of the Governor's recommended budget for the Permanent Commission of the Status of Women.

As all of us know, here in Connecticut and throughout the nation, aging is clearly certainly a woman's issue.

Connecticut Community Care last year served just under 14,000 elders. Of those 14,000 elders, three out of every four, 74%, were elderly women.

Informal care providers, although we are seeing more and more men who are involved in the care of their parents and of their grandparents and other family members, we still find that informal care-giving is primarily a woman's issue.

Regarding formal care-giving, that is nursing, home health aid, personal care attendant, companions and homemakers, nine out of ten of every one of those caregivers is a woman.

It is for this reason that Connecticut Community Care in the course of our 25-year history has been a partner with the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, particularly the particular initiative of the Commission which has to do with the Connecticut Women's Health Campaign.

PCSW performs three very critical roles regarding the Connecticut Women's Health Campaign.

Number one, PCSW is a convener, a facilitator, brings together nonprofit organizations and public policy experts as well as state agencies to look at a host of issues that have to do with women's health concerns.

Number two, PCSW and [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2A to Tape 2B.]

--profit organizations. And thirdly, PCSW, through the Permanent Commission of the Status of Women and the Connecticut Women's Health Campaign, addresses, recommends, analyzes and reviews public policy with an eye towards collaboration and enhancement of issues that have to do with women's health, again, very often aging women.

For these reasons, I would ask you to please consider appropriately funding the budget for the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women as recommended in Governor Rell's budget.

PCSW has been very involved in the issues of homecare, nutrition, medical malpractice, prescription drugs, osteoporosis, and issues for disabled women and will continue to be involved with your help.

I thank you for your time and I particularly thank you. I think I've probably been coming to public hearings now for 25 or 30 years and I can say that I have never participated in the hearing before where this degree of attention and respect was given to all the speakers, and I can't thank you enough for that. I'm sure it's been a long hard day for all of you. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Comments, questions? Thank you for your testimony. Next, Michelle Anderson.

MICHELLE ANDERSON: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Michelle Anderson and I'm the Vice President of the Connecticut Family Resource Alliance, and we're an alliance that consists of 62 statewide family resource centers.

The Family Resource Center Alliance works to promote and strengthen state-funded family resource centers located in 39 school districts.

The FRCs have seven different service component models and I've explained them in my written testimony, so I won't go through them now.

FRCs are the family component to many of the State Department of Ed's different initiatives, including universal preschool, family literacy, and school readiness.

Tonight I'm here to just talk about possible funding increases for Family Resource Centers. In 1988, FRCs were originally funded at $250,000 per center.

Since the inception, funding has decreased over the years. Our mission has been implemented through direct service or collaborations within the community.

As the number of FRCs grew, funding seemed to decrease, but the needs for services also increased at the same time.

Many FRCs have waiting lists for early childhood programs and positive youth development programming.

Currently, we are all funded at $102,250 per center. We were delighted to have a portion of our funding restored by the Legislature last year and to have the Commissioner of Ed's support this past year.

As an Alliance, we feel we can serve families more effectively if we increased or had stable funding from the State.

We recommend increasing the allocation per FRC to $125,000 per FRC. This would be just an increase over $1 million. This is still 50% below our original funding at $250,000 per center, but it would enhance staffing and increase programming.

The additional resources could be used to add badly needed FRCs in addition to that. Some ideas for how it would enhance staffing would be retention of quality staff.

And, Senator Harp, I hope you ask me the question about salaries too, because I think that's something in FRCs we have not been able to be competitive as compared to, say, the school districts that we're housed in.

And programming. There is a lot of talk in our State about early childhood. We have excellent early childhood programming. Had we had more resources, we could do a lot more, including the home visitation pieces that are excellent to families.

We get into the home when the family, under five years of age, the birth to three population, we can do home services and some great pre-K services too. So we can really be utilized for all of that.

We are not alone in recognizing the need for Family Resource Centers. The Commissioner of Education this year has made a recommendation of having one in each low-performing school, because she sees the benefits of what we can offer to the schools in communities.

FRCs are a vehicle to help school systems and communities prepare young children for school, increase parent involvement, support families, and stimulate academic achievement.

Just quickly, we are engaged in a statewide evaluation right now. The Alliance is undergoing this and this will help provide some information upon our outcomes in terms of our services and qualities and what they do demonstrate.

We're hoping that we find within our data that we do enhance academic success around our students, and we hope that we can demonstrate that the money is well-spent and worth replicating throughout the State.

We're in a good position today because we have been enjoying a lot of support, especially from Legislators around FRC. Let us help FRCs grow in this State so we can definitely increase the number of families we serve. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions? Senator Handley?

SEN. HANDLEY: Thank you. Nice to see you today. I have a couple of questions and they really have to do with coordinating the work that you do with other organizations.

For example, how do you coordinate with the local school system itself, since you are really a body on your own?

Is that sort of individual or as it works within the school where you're located, or is there a kind of systematic approach to coordinating so that teacher, if she realizes something's going on, will come and let you know and you begin to explore what needs to be done?

MICHELLE ANDERSON: On the fiscal end of it, most FRCs, the school district, the school, Board of Education is the fiscal agents who are housed right in the schools and that's a requirement and you know that.

We are linked so well with schools and it is on an individual basis. Some schools have offices that are located right near the principal's office or in the heat of where the staff are, and those connections are made a little bit easier.

From what I know from our whole Alliance is that our schools see us as vital resources. Staff are utilizing our services. I could speak for my family resource center in Torrington.

I am located right near the principal's office. I'm part of the school system. We have a huge resource and referral component where staff know to come see me.

I collaborate with the school social worker and the school psychologist to offer services as well, so I that's the model that's very common in every--

SEN. HANDLEY: --no, the other issue that I have is with children as they move from grammar school where typically you are into the middle school or into junior high or high school, and coordination with youth service bureaus or other groups that are designed to help often the same kids, but as they get a little older. Do you have some kind of formal arrangements or are those again individual?

MICHELLE ANDERSON: At times I think they are on an individual school basis just due to the logistics of the middle school being so different.

However, in our Legislation, it is forth grade through sixth grade, so we are committed to making sure that link at least between fifth and sixth is secure.

I'll give you an example. At my school we have a mentoring program and in fifth grade. When the children exit out of that program, I have formal collaborations with the middle school, at least contacts and ways to track those kids and make sure if they need to be with a mentor for one more year that could work out for them, so I think it is individual, but it is our commitment.

SEN. HANDLEY: It might be something that we should take a look at it--

MICHELLE ANDERSON: --yeah, I know we have very strong collaborations with the youth service fairs, not just my FRC, but a statewide--

SEN. HANDLEY: --that's what I want to hear--

MICHELLE ANDERSON: --yeah, they're very strong. Not every program is run in the middle school, but that's part of our positive youth.

SEN. HARP: Thank you. Are there further questions? Representative McCrory, followed by Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. MCCRORY: I'm quite familiar with the FRC and a couple of the elementary schools in our district.

And I'm curious to know, are all the FRCs funded by the State, because I know we had one of the elementary schools and the other one closed down, and I'm not quite sure if it was due to funding or due to something else?

MICHELLE ANDERSON: There's 62 funded by the State and from the Family Resource Center model is a State initiative, so I would answer your question yes.

However, there are family support programs we have in our State that are called Family Centers, Resource Centers, that the model looks similar.

But the State model with the seven components, those are state-funded programs, and if it wasn't an elementary school, it's probable that it was a state-funded Family Resource Center.

SEN. HARP: Thank you. Representative Kirkley-Bey?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Thank you and good evening. I just wanted to ask, of the 62 schools, did you say 62 schools you're in?

If you could send us a list of how many of those of schools are failing in those cities, because I know Hartford has FRCs and we're looking to put some in a couple of the other schools that are failing, and I'd just like to get some information on that and maybe speak to you about it privately.

MICHELLE ANDERSON: Sure, will do, because we just had a meeting today and that was our topic of discussion, so I can get that list for you very easily.

SEN. HARP: I'm looking at the $102,250 per year that each center receives according to your testimony.

Do the local school districts supplement that funding in any way or do you have the ability to go for grants and typically how many individuals, how many staff people does this amount support?

MICHELLE ANDERSON: I use my center as an example, but I do truly feel it is a reflection on a state level being that we're very strongly bonded in this Alliance and we know a lot about each other's centers.

My center has two and a half staff people, and I say a half because one person is ten hours and that's all we could afford, and that also in addition to several other grants.

I have an additional two other grants that help supplement some of our programming. And that is very common among all the FRCs, that we are avid grant writers and we try to attract a lot of resources.

Not all grants provide resources for staffing, so it's generally programming. Local districts, it was intended that they would have the commitment of providing additional funding for family resource centers or at least help in some of the program aspects.

Of course, they provide wonderful income space and also other services throughout the year. However, we're noticing that many districts are strapped for funding themselves and different initiatives and the Family Resource Centers haven't been something that they are prioritizing.

And, you know, I'm speaking from the Alliance because I do feel that's a general consensus out there.

We did do a survey of all the FRCs to see how salaries were diversified and different funding streams coming in from Board of Ed's, and if you would like that, I could get that information.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Further questions? If not, thank you very much. Next, Dan Gaynor.

Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriation Board. My name is Dan Gaynor. I reside at 278 Crystal Avenue in New London, Connecticut.

I'm here tonight representing CAACE, the Connecticut Association of Adult and Continuing Education, requesting that the Appropriations Committee support Governor Rell's FY '06 proposed budget for adult education.

I'm also Director of New London Adult Education, which represents New London, Waterford, Montville, Lyme and southeastern Connecticut, and we serve approximately 3,000 adult students each year.

For the last three years, adult education has been capped at $16,910,000 having an increasingly negative effect on adult education programs.

In FY '03, adult education was under-funded by $2,326,567, which just continued in FY '04 and '05.

By under-funded, I mean the available local dollars that normally would be matched by a state grant, which because of the cap are not matched, so it was over $2 million that did not match the local dollars available.

The case survey taken in the first year of the cap showed that 3,434 students were placed on waiting lists for high school diploma, ABE, GED, ESL and ABE classes.

Also, teaching hours, worksite programs, and the length of the school year were reduced. Since the first year of the cap, waiting lists, reduction of program hours and shortened school year have been continued. It is extremely important that you support Government Rell's budget for the following reasons.

As the Connecticut workforce ages and retires from the workforce, which is happening rapidly in the State, every adult will be needed to be trained and ready for the expanding economy in Connecticut.

In FY '04, 33,000 Connecticut residents participated in adult education program, 43% of whom were limited English speakers and 45% were under the age 25.

Community colleges and local businesses need adequately funded adult education programs to prepare their youth for the workforce and to take advantage of the state and community college system.

The second reason is President Bush's FY '06 proposed federal budget cuts cut Connecticut 72% starting in FY '06.

Also, they eliminate programs that are dear and near to my heart, like to either start program [inaudible] zero it out.

Currently, federal dollars from workforce preparation, worksite and family literacy initiatives around the state. Without these federal funds, the adult education programs will be even more under-funded than they are presently. The resources available to prepare adults for jobs are reduced.

In '04, the state grant to adult education was $16,900,000. Local contributions were $18,900,000, with the state grants capped over the last three years.

The local burden has increased and towns like New London, and I speak firsthand, we can't make up the difference in the funding. Therefore, we can't provide the services to the students and we have waiting lists and frustration.

State grants were cut 11% in '03, 12% in '04, and we're looking at between 14% and 16% for '05. I can't give you that figure right now because the 245 grants hasn't been completely evaluated by the State, but the State tells me it's going to be between 14% and 16%.

This will continue to go up next year and the year after if something isn't done at this particular point.

What we're asking for at this particular point, and I know you're busy and I know you have problems with a lot of funding issues, is to support the Governor's budget this year.

That cutting will not be made up and for '06 we'll probably be getting cut again, but at least it's giving us a little bit more money and heading in the right direction. That's it.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions? Senator Handley.

SEN. HANDLEY: Thank you for your passion. It's very clear. Two questions. One, you mentioned, and I know we've heard this elsewhere, that the sizeable number of students who are typically of high school and close to high school age, who have opted out of attending regular school classes and sometimes may be encouraged to do that and then work for their GED, have you done anything to think about looking to the school systems for assistance under those circumstance with a child who might otherwise be in the regular school system?

DAN GAYNOR: The majority of the local funds come from LEAs. Some of us do private foundation grants. I applied for every grant that's available in the New London area.

SEN. HANDLEY: Okay. The other question I had for you is do you have relationships with your local Workforce Development Board?

DAN GAYNOR: Yes, we do. Absolutely.

REP. MERRILL: Other questions? Representative Walker?

REP. WALKER: Good evening. You know that adult education is near and dear to my heart. I think, first of all, what you're bringing out is something that people may not realize as much as they should.

And as Senator Handley brought up, the number of children that are being displaced from the public schools because the public schools are in a rock and a hard place.

Maybe of the kids that are being displaced are kids that just don't seem to make it in the mainstream of schools and it brings down the student achievement, so for that, they end up transferring them to adult education.

I know that that's part of the problem that we grapple with in adult education right now because of the fact that we've got a lot of kids that are young.

We can't have any younger than 16 because that's the way the State is, but our numbers of younger kids is getting larger and larger, both English as a major language and English as a second language.

We also in New Haven have a very high waiting list also. If we funded adult education at 100%, what would be the amount that we would be doing?

DAN GAYNOR: I believe the State came in with $21 million for '06.

REP. WALKER: At 100% of what we need?

DAN GAYNOR: Yes. The Governor's proposal is $19.5 million, I believe. The existing budget is $16.9 million, which I'm saying is very much under-funds the system and we will continue to have a waiting list and that kind of situation and you are correct.

No Child Left Behind and a lot of the pressures associated with high school has really pushed, I think, a lot of the young people out of the K-through-12 system for various reasons.

There are always other reasons too. Kids leave because of pregnancies, they leave because of being incarcerated, and rather than go back to the high school, they come into adult ed.

REP. WALKER: Plus, we are also getting a lot of kids coming out of the juvenile justice system. I mean, that number has increased, so adult education is carrying the weight of the children that weren't able to succeed within the mainstream schools.

And we're also getting the kids that are coming out of juvenile justice that have not been addressed or not been reentered into the school system.

So I guess in one way we're doing a lot of services for a lot of things, and $21 million is pretty small for the amount we're serving, so thank you very much for your time.

DAN GAYNOR: You're welcome. May I just say that Senator Handley's question is that it's a pretty good investment, I think, for the State because the local LEAs kick in right now more than half of the amount of dollars. So it's a very good funding system for the State. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Other questions? Okay, thank you. Next, Jan VanTassel.

JAN VANTASSEL: Good evening and thank you all for being here. I'm one of those high-paid legal aid lawyers. I've worked my way up from $10,000 when I started.

My name is Jan VanTassel. I'm the Executive Director of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project, a statewide legal assistance program that represents low-income adults with psychiatric disabilities.

I'm actually here tonight to add my voice to others who are calling for the State to establish alternatives to incarceration for adults with psychiatric disabilities.

As you've already heard the data, which points at number one, we have no alternative to incarcerations or beds for adults with psychiatric disabilities.

It's cost effective, and as a result of that we now have people who are in prisons unnecessarily. It's cost effective in the community. It is going to promote recovery.

But I want to share another reason that I attached to my testimony correspondence at Connecticut Legal Rights Project and other legal aid programs have had with the Department of Corrections, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and the Judicial Department, pointing out to them that in our opinion, the failure to provide alternatives to incarceration for people with psychiatric disabilities violates both the State and Federal Constitutions in the Americans With Disabilities Act.

We've been in the process of having conversations with the State for some time on this subject. And frankly, what we'd like to do is get it addressed, not litigate.

What I'm here tonight to do is just urge you to assure that there's adequate funding for alternatives to incarceration.

There's three recommendations in the Prison and Jail Overcrowding Report that specifically addresses this.

There are other provisions there that we certainly support, but one of them is augmenting the current Community Support Services Division AICs with mental health services, establishing a residential and a day reporting program, which actually a request for qualifications has already been issued, but it's an RFQ because they don't know if they have the money to establish it.

Thirdly, and very important to us, is also conducting a systematic review of the existing community services to see what we need to integrate them.

I just want to emphasize one last point. We do not support simply establishing a segregated approach.

There are certainly some people with severe mental illness who will probably need a segregated program because they cannot be integrated into existing systems, but to the fullest extent possible, it is both legally and morally appropriate to integrate people into the existing ARC programs. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions?

SEN. HARP: I have a question and it has nothing to do with what you just talked about. I think it's something that you would be interested in.

I was really amazed by the fact that we allow State Marshals in our State to carry guns and I really think that it could be a problem to the population that you represent.

It certainly has been a problem in terms of police not having adequate training to deal with people that have mental illnesses. Just thought I would put that out as something for you to consider perhaps opposing at some point.

JAN. VANTASSEL: I appreciate it. We get some extra funding, I'll do more work. Certainly when we discuss the prison and jail overcrowding, police training and some of the other issues are part of our recommendations there that are just desperately needed, as you well know. We've discussed the situation in New Haven. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Next we have Alex Troy.

ALEX TROY: Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, Members of the Committee, my name is Alex Troy. I'm the Chairman of Connecticut Alliance for Grade Schools.

We are an Alliance of educators, charter schools, businessmen, businesswomen, and our mission is to see that every child in the State of Connecticut gets an outstanding education.

We think the way to achieve that now is to strengthen the charter school law. I'm a professional investor and I would like to make an analogy to what I do every day at work and how it applies to the situation we face with charter schools.

There's a powerful force that I see in the investment world every day and it works this way. It's relevant to the question of public education and charter schools.

When entrepreneurs take on great risk, when they go out to start a new company, when they leave a good job, when they take a second mortgage, they have to be rewarded if they succeed.

If they're not, why would they do this. And in fact, in our economy, they are awarded and it's not an accident that America is the world's hub of innovation and invention. We need that same principle to work in public education.

The thing is, we're actually privileged in Connecticut to have 14 of the most dynamic effective social entrepreneurs in the country. I'm referring to the 14 people who have the bravery, the guts, the perseverance to go out and start charter schools.

There's one big difference between them and the entrepreneurs that I watch every day in my professional capacity.

These are entrepreneurs that are social entrepreneurs, that are not trying to make themselves rich. They're not trying to get another buck. They're not trying to sell us a new mousetrap. They're only out there educating kids.

They're preparing them so that these children can compete in the global market place. A marketplace that anyone who has children, as I do, and I'm sure many of you do, know the world is getting more competitive all the time.

I would just ask you to please apply the same principle that works so effectively in the world of markets, in the world in our economy, to the public school system.

Let our social entrepreneurs reward them for the effective job they've done. You can see, we have a lot of people come out tonight because they appreciate what experience their children are having in public charter schools and I think we can do an even better job for more children if you help us. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions? Representative Fleischmann?

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you for your testimony and your patience tonight. What you're talking about essentially to me seems to me is incentives that reward those who are successful.

As I think you're aware, within the charter school movement, one can differentiate among schools and some are supremely successful in terms of educational results. Most do pretty well, some less well.

If we're crafting an approach to increase funding for charter schools, are you and the others in CCAG open to an approach that does differentiate among schools based upon how they're doing?

ALEX TROY: Well, I'd like to see all 14 of our operators get the help they need because I think all of them will succeed.

Right now, as you're probably aware, Representative, a charter school receives $7,250 per student. The average states spend is about $10,000, and the charter school has to, out of that $7200, also finance a facility.

I think when you consider that fact, I think all 14, with a little more help, will all do better than average, so I'd like to see them all get help is my answer.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Well, I understand that, but the fact is that of those 14, there are one or two that may actually be decertified by the Department of Education sometime in the next few years because, by the Department's standards, they're not achieving what they had aimed to do.

So there are clearly distinctions among the schools. So given that fact in a world of scarce resources, it might be impossible for you to answer for CCAG tonight and you might want, for yourself, mull it over, but I am interested to know whether that would make sense and be acceptable to folks in the charter school movement as one of the things that we're doing.

Because if you're talking about incentives, if you're talking about rewarding success, then obviously the schools that are doing the best could understandably be recognized more than those that are doing well, but not as well.

ALEX TROY: Well, I think that's a legitimate point. I think it is.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Great. Others? Representative McCrory?

REP. MCCRORY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just quickly, why do you think that some of the charter schools have been more successful than others or been more successful than some of the public schools?

I work with charter schools for ten years now, and I'm glad you guys were fortunate enough to get your charter. We were too, but we didn't have any funding at the time from the state, or I'm sure we would have done just as well.

But what leads you to give that impression? Why are you guys more successful in most cases, like you said, than the other public schools?

ALEX TROY: Well, you know, as Representative Fleischmann pointed out, there are differences, but I think in the end, what you see is just the way you see in the stock market. You see a determination, devotion, hard work on the part of most of the charter school operators.

I would say they operate on a principle of accountability, that they measure results, they insist on results, and the children respond to that.

And I think the other observation I'd make is the more successful models we have out there, the easier it will be for newcomers to copy that model.

These 14, which is why I was so reluctant to answer your question, Representative Fleischmann, are pioneers. The next 14 don't have to be pioneers, it gets easier.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Questions or comments? Representative Fleischmann?

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly on that last point about preparedness in charter schools to offer their learning and lessons in how to teach to other schools.

As I mentioned in some other settings, that was one of the reasons that the State of Connecticut launched this effort and I've mentioned it in private forums. I'll mention it again here tonight.

To the extent the charter schools can help us put together best practices, public schools can be turned to.

We're looking at a number of different approaches, including academies that school principals and superintendents can be going to learn more about innovative practices.

We really need the charter schools to be stepping up and offering us their lessons, and that doesn't take away at all from what we're talking about here.

I think these are complimentary efforts, but I have yet seen some of those best practices that we've talked about.

And I do think that's part of the wonderful thing that charter schools do, and I hope that you and others in the movement will be open to getting us materials sooner rather than later that we can use in efforts to grab some of your successes in the public schools.

ALEX TROY: We'll absolutely do that because all of us support the public schools and all of us want them to succeed.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. More questions, I'm sorry.

REP. WALKER: Just a question and a comment. I think part of the question that Representative McCrory was talking about, what is your student-teacher ratio in charter schools?

ALEX TROY: I apologize, I can't answer across the board. I happen to be on the Board of Directors of Amistad Academy in New Haven, and even there, I'm probably going to get into a lot of trouble, I'll take a guess and I think it's in the low 20's to 1. I think that's the answer.

REP. WALKER: I think the other thing is I know a couple of the charter schools that I'm familiar with that are not doing very well, unfortunately have not had the opportunity to choose their students all the time.

Sometimes the school system has directed the students that they wanted to to that school because they had no other place to put them, so that was an unfortunate situation also. My question is how do you address special education within the charter school?

ALEX TROY: The charter schools, as public schools, have the obligation to take any student irrespective of special education needs and provide an equivalent level of support and service to that student.

And they do receive additional finance from the State and the district in the event they wind up with special ed kids in their population.

REP. MERRILL: Senator Harp?

SEN. HARP: Okay. Using your business model that we were back here really trying to get, forgive us, we didn't quite get it.

But as a member of the Board of Directors of Amistad Academy and sort of looking at it, what would say are some of the differences that you can attribute their success if you had to sort isolate certain things that you look at it?

It's obviously not money because you're saying we don't fund enough, so what are some of the other things that made the risk, if I understood your parable correctly, that made the risk as they undertook worthwhile and achieved their goals and beyond?

ALEX TROY: I think the reason Amistad is so successful is they are committed to a culture of no excuses.

They have very high expectations for the children and the children understand they're expected to go to college. That's the key to having a successful career and successful life in our country today.

So you start with that premise and then everyone, not just the children, there is literally and figuratively a contract everyone has to live up to.

Homework has to be done. Students are tested every four to five weeks to make sure they're learning the concepts they're supposed to.

If they're not learning those concepts, the students who aren't, extra help is given to them to make sure they do. We have a longer day that's heavily focused on academics.

If the students aren't learning, there's also the possibility the teachers aren't doing the job right and Amistad has, on occasion, has had to have teachers leave because they're not effective enough.

In the end, I think it's a question of accountability of incentives. Teachers are also have incentives to get students to perform well. So it's a combination of culture, incentives, and expectations.

If I may, the only point I'm making clear, only to myself, but in the business world, someone like Dave Schitol, who I know, or someone like Joan Heffernan at Integrated Day, or someone like Tim Dutton at Bridge Academy, where last year every student who graduated was accepted to go to college.

If these people were running companies, they would be trading on the NASDAQ at huge multiples, they would be getting big stock option packages, and getting rich because the market rewards success and that's not a bad thing. That's a good thing.

As I was saying, people take great risks to try to get successful. Dave Schitol and Joan Heffernan and Tim Dutton and the other 11 leaders, I apologize, I mean, there's other people who are doing this too.

They're not in this to get rich. They're not in this to get a big stock option package. They just want our kids to get educated and so what I'm saying is let's just support them at an equivalent rate to traditional public schools.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Yes, Senator Cappiello?

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just so you know, I've been in and out, but I've been listening on my TV.

The first point I want to make is don't worry, I make points all the time and only I know what I'm talking about, so don't worry about that.

I was very impressed last year when the students had come up to testify before the Appropriations Committee, I think it was last year, very impressed.

I don't want to go over all the issues you went over when I was in my office, but I would love to be able to take a tour to see Amistad Academy because I am still taken aback at how well they deal when the other charter schools do in comparison to sometimes the school systems in their own town.

And I need to actually see to get a feel for what's going on there, so I hope I get a chance to do that.

ALEX TROY: Senator, you and your fellow Committee Members have an open invitation and I'm glad I just found out I was on TV. I wouldn't have been able to do this had I known, so thank you for disclosing that secret after--

SENATOR CAPIELLO: Don't worry, it was just your audio. Don't worry about that.

ALEX TROY: Oh, great.

REP. MERRILL: By the way, it's all over the State too. I hate to tell you, no, just audio, you're in luck.

ALEX TROY: I'm in luck. My wife would want to know why I'm not wearing a tie.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Next we have William Brooks.

HAROLD BROOKS: I apologize for the confusion. William Brooks is my son.

Hi, my name is Harold Brooks and I'm a native New Haven product of the public school system. My wife and I are very supportive of our children in terms of education.

One of the things I just want to share with this Committee about my son. He went to school in public schools. He's an early starter. His kindergarten teacher, first grade teacher said this is an exceptional child, he's going to do well, stay on top of it.

We had some problems in our family with health and so we had to kind of like juggle between education and family health issues.

By fourth grade, Amistad came along and we thought we would send him Amistad because we wanted a different approach.

He got into Amistad and he went for early testing. We were told after his fourth academic year that he was on a sixth-grade reading level, possibly, with certain books, seventh grade. We went to Amistad thinking, wow, we're really going to hit the charts now.

He was tested and they were deciding to place, you know, where they were going to place the children.

We inquired on orientation night and we were informed that our son was a frustrated reader barely on the third-grade reading level.

I can't tell you how devastated, how upset my wife and I were, simply because we put our confidence in the school system and at first, he was doing well. I'm not sure what happened, so I'm not here to lay blame on them.

But I am here to say that as of today, we talked to his teacher a couple months ago, we talk to her on a regular basis, but she just did some testing, as he just spoke about, and he is now on, today, a sixth-grade reading level, doing exceptionally well.

He still has some struggle with preadolescent age characteristics, but he's doing well in school.

My concern here today in support of charter schools is I'd like to see the funding raised. We talked about, or a lot of people talked about, what's ailing African Americans, what's ailing people with legal aid. I think the basis starts with education.

If we can educate our children and our cities, then that will solve a lot of your problems. You won't have people coming here looking for money to solve problems later on in life. We spend more money on correctional institutions than we do on education. I think that's horrible. I think that's terrible.

I think our children should come first. New Haven has done a great job. They have come around.

I'm sure the cities and other towns have done it as well, but I think supporting charter schools will give them the tools that they need to keep our children climbing up to college.

My son comes home now and we beat him over the head, you're going to go to college, you're going to college, but he comes home now talking about climbing the mountain to college.

I can't tell you how proud that makes me feel, seeing that as an African male, the only way he's going to really succeed--

[Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2B to Tape 3A.]

--and we're just here to get you to support our children at the charter schools. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions? Representative Kirkley-Bey?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I have said many times and I've always believed that education is the way out of poverty. I have felt that all my life, but I'm grappling with this issue.

And I'm not saying that I don't believe we should do full funding of charter schools, but there are 14 in the state.

I have 32 to 35 in my city, so that means how many kids are being left behind and for those mothers and those kids, what are their dreams. What are their aspirations?

I think someone said we need to take, I think it was Andy that said we need to take the best practices as soon as we can and start applying them to all of the public schools. We're losing generations of kids across this country.

It's not a Hartford or Connecticut issue. It's a national problem, and we're losing them and we will not be able to recapture them, so that means that the generation that's coming after them is less likely to succeed.

While I grapple with how do we do that, I'm not saying I don't agree with what you're doing, and I've talked to the woman, the Dean, and I think her name is from Amistad and I plan on going down there myself.

But we've got to come to terms with, yes, I have these charter schools and I have these magnet schools and they're doing well, but also, I've got X numbers of schools across the State of Connecticut that are not doing well, and those kids have the right to dream as well.

HAROLD BROOKS: I agree with you. I think one of the problems or one of the solutions would be that the public schools, they do look at the charter schools and mirror what they're doing.

One of the successes I like about Amistad is they take the time to learn or to make sure the children learn the strategies that they need in order to move on.

My son had struggled with learning strategies. They weren't understanding why he was where he was, but when they found out that he didn't grasp the strategies he should have grasped, they didn't hold the rest of the class back, but they took the time with him to get to build those strategies.

I think with the school system or the general regular public school system, they're dealing with masses of children, sometimes 25 and 30 kids in a classroom.

And the day is a lot shorter than it is at a charter school, so you don't have that immediate attention that most of our children need.

I've found, even being a product of public schools myself, if you're not at the very top of the product, of our excellence of education, you get missed. If you're not at the bottom, you're missed.

So those kids are in the middle, which is the masses, they're pushed aside because we're focusing on the kids who are really excelling or we're focusing on the kids that really have a problem.

So the people in the middle get missed and I think that's where charter schools come into play. They help those kids who are in the middle who are just average and get them to push beyond to get above average.

REP. MERRILL: Senator Cappiello?

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for your testimony. What I'm struggling with is your answer, which I appreciate.

I'm trying to get a handle of you're saying. That there are 25 to 30 students per classroom in New Haven school system and there are less in charter schools.

But from my recollection from last year, each student in the New Haven School System is funded by about $2,000 to $3,000 more per year in total funding with private funds, local funds, state funds in the charter schools.

Yet the Amistad Academy is still able to spend that much more time, still able to make these kids excel, so there's some disconnect between what's happening with charter schools and what's happening in the New Haven School System because you're not cherry picking.

They take special ed students, so I'm trying to understand exactly where the disconnect is, because I think they're doing a great job there and I hate to see students in the other school systems fail and not get the education they deserve, like your son, at one time, was not getting.

HAROLD BROOKS: I'm not sure the answer to that problem or to that question, but I do know that the contact between the parents, the teachers and the students are exceptional, and I like the fact that Amistad sets such a high standard.

I think the higher you set your bar, people aspire to that. If I set the bar medium, then that's where people are going to aspire to, but if I set the standard real high, that's where people are going to push to strive to.

Not everyone at Amistad reaches the high standard bar. My son struggles every month just to reach REACH, you know, respect, enthusiasm, achievement and citizenship and hard work, reach, but nonetheless, he's still there and he's striving towards it.

They maintain their standard and they don't bring their standard down. I'm not saying the public schools have less standards.

I'm just saying that Amistad or the charter schools have done an exceptional job between making a contract between parents, students and the faculty to set a high standard and ensure that everyone strives to make that standard.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: And I appreciate that and I agree with you. I guess, I think what we're struggling with is there's a variable there that we don't necessarily understand or know yet that's not money.

That's not saying they don't deserve more money, but there's a variable there that is telling me it isn't just about money because Amistad has less funding than the New Haven school system.

There's something else there that we are not understanding or getting and I'm hoping that we can find it and find it quickly, so thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Senator Harp?

SEN. HARP: It's good to see that you are following in the family's tradition of community service and advocacy. Your uncle was someone that we admire and that has done work.

We've talked about one of the programs that you founded, the rental assistance program today in connection with corrections.

So I just want to let you know that we appreciate the civic-mindedness of your family and the fact that you're following in his footsteps as well as the footsteps of your aunt, Andrea Jackson Brooks.

Thank you and I'm certain with your voice and those parents that are with you that we will have to pay some attention to the needs of charter schools in our State.

HAROLD BROOKS: Senator Harp, I thank you and I thank you all as well.

REP. MERRILL: Thanks for your testimony. Next on our list we have Dymonique Colon.

DYMONIQUE COLON: Good evening. My name is Dymonique Colon and I'm what everybody's about, I guess you can say. I'm the student of a charter school. I go to Common Ground High School in New Haven, Connecticut. It's a charter school with an ecology basis.

What I really want to talk about today is I hear a lot of questions about the public school versus the charter school.

And my freshman year, I went to Hill House High School, James Hill House High School, a big high school in New Haven, and my sophomore year I changed and went to Common Ground High School so that was a dramatic change.

It was like a 2,000 and something change in students to 150 students and I didn't want to go because at Hill House. I wasn't comfortable. I did well, but I wasn't able to find out who I really was.

There's a lot of talk about the classrooms. I can remember sitting in a classroom and just being a C, just being a number.

The teachers would go down the list and they would say okay, C Colon, you're up, you know, and they would just go down to D and there's not a lot of basis for one on one interaction.

I struggled in math horribly. I'm still, I'm working on it, but I'm not a math student. I'm an English student and there wasn't that one on one.

I need to have the math broke down for me, and because of the way that the classes are structured, you have, like he said earlier, you have the higher level, you have the average and then you have the lower end.

I happen to be in the higher, but I was always at the bottom of the higher because I didn't receive that attention that I needed because nobody sat down with me to explain it step by step with me.

At Common Ground, with a class of maybe 15 to 20 students, something around there, my teacher, actually he would sit down, and I think that's the missing link, in my opinion, that everybody's missing, about the teachers.

Because the school is smaller, we actually have the teachers sit down and they become mentors to these kids and not just a teacher. They're not just somebody, you raise your hand and, you know, and they're paying to teach you.

They become your friends. You start to get a relationship with them. They start to understand you. They see your weaknesses and they help you focus on your weaknesses and they help you get stronger.

I love going to a charter school because that's where I learned to spread my wings. I never thought that I would be applying to Georgetown and Princeton and Columbia, never. I never thought I'd have the confidence to do that.

Here, at Common Ground, they taught me that I have that confidence. With the smaller school, with smaller area, we become like a family. And like a family, we can be dysfunctional, we have our problems, but we work out the kinks and we work them out together.

Again, right now, charter schools in general offer so many opportunities. For example, last year, as a matter of fact, I was here again with a class called Power and we brought Legislative proposals to Senator Harp.

I'm not sure if you remember and we wouldn't get the opportunity at a bigger high school like Hill House.

I was able to do something called Habitat for Humanity and another student, a senior, was actually able to travel to Mexico with that group. And I will wrap it up, I'm sorry.

There's a lot of things that we can do that we wouldn't be able to do if we were at a larger high school.

In my environmental justice class, I was able to participate in the actual building of homes. And I was actually able to go to an elementary school called Catherine Brennan.

And what I did was I created my own lesson plans for second-grade students to help them with reading, and then they took a test for their reading level, and the students that I worked with actually scored a grade level higher.

And that shows a lot because we actually had a small group of students, maybe about five or ten of us, and we went to the schools and every week we would work with these kids and we would help them.

And that's the kind of attention that we need. We need people to sit there and we need to say, listen, this is what you need to do and then we're going to help you.

We don't have that opportunity when you're at a larger high school. We don't have people that can actually do that.

We have awesome teachers and I'm not trying to put down any of the public high schools or anything like that, but they don't have that one on one. They don't have that relationship with the students and that's the missing link.

Once you establish a relationship with the kids, then they learn to trust you and then they learn to integrate the things that you're talking about into their daily life.

That's what turns kids around. That's what makes them want to change their lives. That's what makes them want to go farther and reach those goals that they didn't think they could have before. Thank you. Are you there any questions?

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Representative Walker.

RE. WALKER: Good evening and great testimony. I have one question. When you decided to go from Hill House to Common Ground, were your parents with you when you did this and made this decision?

DYMONIQUE COLON: My mom, she's a single mother, she had me when she was a teenager, and right there, you know, she's Hispanic, didn't think she would go far. That's just a case that I'm sure a lot of people in this room are familiar with.

And she actually thought it would be better for me that I would be able to emerge, that I would be able to find the voice that I never had before.

And she thought that I should go to a smaller school where there was a community that supports you and in a larger school you don't have that community, you don't have that foundation.

I didn't want to go. It was kind of like all my friends were there, you know. I finally started to like certain parts of it.

And when I got there, as mother's usually are, she was right and I enjoyed it and I'm happy that I went there and when I graduate, I'm going to miss it.

And because of Common Ground, I'm actually in a program now called the Outstanding High School Senior Program, which takes exceptional students from the New Haven area and the greater New Haven area and it gives them a full semester for free.

That's like $11,000 I don't have to pay for, at U&H, so I'm a full-time undergrad student. I have political science, public relations, and I have all my classes and I'm attending a school right now.

REP. WALKER: You picked up that math real quick, huh?

DYMONIQUE COLON: Yeah, I'm taking calculus.

REP. WALKER: Does your mother participate with the programs at Common Grounds? Does she do anything more than she did at Hill House?

DYMONIQUE COLON: Yes, oh, definitely. In my junior and sophomore year, she was more hands-on. She came to the PTA meetings, and she was always trying to help, and now she's saying I'm doing better, that I can handle myself.

She's giving me a lot more room to breathe and she has been, I guess you can say, a rock in this decision.

And I would recommend this for all students because this something that really opens doors for you, and it really opens up your eyes and it makes you see that there are, you know, you actually have an opportunity to become better than what the bar is set for.

He said before if you set the bar low, that's what you're going to get. They don't set the bar low at charter schools. They set it up here and you want to reach beyond that.

REP. WALKER: I think the one thing that I think we're hearing in a lot of the testimony is that parent participation in the programs.

And I guess one thing that we should find out from the charter schools is how do we encourage more parent participation. And obviously they have the key, so maybe we need to work on that. So thank you very much and good luck in college. Which college are you going to?

DYMONIQUE COLON: Thank you. I'm hoping Georgetown.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. And I just want to remind the Committee Members and members of the audience, we have gotten through one of three pages of people who all want to testify tonight and it's 9:30.

We're veering into six-minute land as opposed to three-minute testimonies that we would love, obviously, you can see we all want to have conversations with every person in this room who's testifying.

However, I think we're going to have to be a little less talkative from now on. If we could try to stick to the three-minute rule, it would be helpful to those of us who want to go to sleep tonight sometime.

So thank you very much. It's been wonderful. Very informative far and we'll continue on. Next we have Lucy Nolan.

LUCY NOLAN: Good evening, Representative Merrill, Senator Harp. My name is Lucy Nolan and I am the Executive Director of End Hunger Connecticut, an anti-hunger and food security organization comprised of the State's emergency food providers.

I'd just like to say that when I first started my job I was asked to come speak at Common Ground, and they totally blew me away. I left with my tail between my legs, they knew so much more about food security than I did at that point. It really is a great school.

I'm here today to speak about the school breakfast program. The Governor's proposed budget, we were very glad to see that there was an increase in the school breakfast line item.

Unfortunately, it really wasn't enough to do the amount of good that the school breakfast program really can do.

For a slight increase in State funding, we could add all severe-needs schools in this State to participate in the school breakfast program, increasing the reach of the program to many of low-income children in the State, increase test scores in schools, and bring more federal funds, plus allow more nutritious food to children. It's a win-win situation.

The federal government provides reimbursement for each breakfast served. I do have it here in my testimony, I won't go into it.

But the state adds $3,000 for each severe-needs school just to help with the added costs plus a stipend of up to $.10 per meal per available appropriations, which is a little less than $.06 per meal right now.

If we add the 21 schools on that we could add on this year for school breakfast, it would decrease that pot, and so the schools would be getting less money than they are now, which is why we're asking for the increase.

If we added all the elementary middle schools in Connecticut that could participate in the school breakfast program, severe-needs schools, using the current low rate of 33% participating in those schools, we would serve an additional 315,000 meals.

And the state would be reimbursed over $436,000 by the federal government, and that's only 33% of the meals.

The school breakfast line item should be increased an additional $56,752 over the Governor's recommendations, which would be $53,976 for this year, and $2,676 for next year.

School breakfast is one of the most important meals of the day. We all know it, we've all been told as children, or our children have been told, make sure you get a good night's rest and eat your breakfast before a test.

It's so important that on test days schools serve breakfast. They may not serve it any time of the year except on the test days.

Research proves that school breakfast, kids who have it have a better diet. They consume lower fat, they eat more fruits and vegetables, they are less likely to be overweight, and their families' nutrition is increased, kids who get school breakfast at school.

Just quickly, that kids who also get breakfast tend to do better on math and reading scores on tests and standardized tests as well.

So it really is a very, very important meal, and we hope that you can add the appropriation for this year for severe needs schools. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions? Jennifer Bertrand.

JENNIFER BERTRAND: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Jennifer Bertrand. I'm here tonight as a parent speaking out for children with a mental illness in the juvenile justice system.

I have a daughter. Her name is Alexis, and she is 17 years old. Alexis is the light of my life, my only daughter.

Two years ago, after many years of psychiatric hospitalizations for depression, Alexis was put on an antidepressant called Celexa. Alexis began to act out by leaving the home late at night in her pajamas.

Alexis would walk the streets alone until she was picked up and returned home by our local police. Alexis said the reason she left at night was to feel free.

During this time, I expressed our concerns for our daughter's safety to her doctors, as well as the police.

After many calls to our local police department, the youth officer in town told us that there was something we as parents could do to help Alexis. He told my husband and I about a FOYSEN, a family in need of service petition.

We were told that the judge would be understanding and would help set some rules for curfews with Alexis. We felt this was a good idea at the time. We were willing to try anything out of fear for her safety.

We filled this petition out and sent it in to the court. Alexis was getting worse day after day and refusing to go back to the therapist at all.

Alexis became extremely manic and paranoid. She believed that my husband and I were trying to send her to jail for the rest of her life. Scared and alone, Alexis disappeared a week before our hearing date at the Rockville court.

My husband and I went to the scheduled hearing without Alexis. I explained to the judge exactly what was taking place with our daughter, her mental illness, and my fears for her safety.

I told the judge that my daughter was mentally ill and has had depression since the age of eight. The judge asked that a TIC order be put out for Alexis. She was to be arrested for missing her hearing.

I pleaded with this judge not to arrest her. I explained this was not our intention. My husband and I were excused from the courtroom.

Three days later, we got the call they had picked Alexis up several towns away. She had been sleeping in a park. Alexis had lost 11 pounds and had not showered in over a week.

The person on the other end of the phone explained to me that Alexis was under arrest and would be going to Broad Street Juvenile Detention Center in Hartford.

Alexis spent the next four months in three different detention centers awaiting the court-ordered evaluation.

Alexis was beaten up and hospitalized two times by other girls who stole from her. Alexis would work in the kitchen cleaning to buy sanitary items off the cart they brought in once a week, things like nice soap or deodorant.

Alexis was not allowed to shave or bathe alone, and often called home crying because the girls would take these luxuries Alexis worked for and nothing she did prevented this.

By law, my daughter was brought back to the Rockville Court, an 80-mile drive each way, every two weeks. This frightened Alexis.

They would wake her up very early. She would do her best to look presentable, hoping that maybe this time the judge would allow her to come home. Alexis would write the judge letters promising not to walk around town at night.

Prior to this, Alexis was an honor-roll student who won awards. Alexis went to state championships for track and field, sang in the chorus, and played basketball. The letters she wrote explained this. The judge never let her read them.

To bring Alexis into court, they would shackle her ankles and her wrists to her waist. They would transport her shackled the entire ride. I would wait for Alexis in front of the courthouse hoping to say hello and tell her that I loved her.

I wasn't allowed to approach her. Alexis would say to me, Mom, don't look, turn away, Mom, please. Alexis didn't want me to see her chained up like that. She was trying to protect me.

I was there visiting her in detention every other day. I saw how the children that were mentally ill were treated by the other girls as well as the staff. My daughter spent the next two years from institution to institution.

My husband and I have spent over $11,000 for attorneys for Alexis and for ourselves, who were useless. When it came to helping our daughter in the juvenile court, we soon found out as parents we are not allowed to petition the court on behalf of the family.

My husband and I sat each time our daughter went through this hell without a voice. We were never heard. In the juvenile court, families are excluded completely.

I do not believe that this system parents-left-behind-make-the-child-stronger approach works. I think it derails parental involvement, and the child suffers the most.

For many months we couldn't imagine how this could happen to our children, to any child in this country, in this state, in these days.

That a sick child, a 15-year-old girl who has never hurt another person a day in her life, or broken the law one time become incarcerated for four months and placed on parole for 18 months.

Then this child is taken away from her home, her brothers, her family, to be institutionalized for 18 months in nine different placements, simply because she is mentally ill.

I am writing this today not for myself or for my child, but unselfishly for another family so that no child suffering from a biochemical brain disorder suffers like my daughter has.

Children with a mental illness do not belong in the juvenile justice system. There simply must be a different avenue that's created for them.

We as the adults, the parents, the lawmakers, and the enforcers of these laws have a responsibility. These children count on us to protect them. Parents are supposed to be able to protect their children. That's our job.

No parent should have to lay in bed at night knowing their mentally ill child is falling asleep afraid in the dark on a cot.

These children are our future. We can make this better, but the change for Connecticut's children must come now. Please don't allow more mentally ill children to be placed in jails awaiting the court-ordered evaluations.

Please don't shackle these children like they are criminals. For most they live in their own self-torment and look for a better tomorrow. We need more treatment facilities for mentally ill children that are not overflowing with children who do not suffer from these disorders.

This for many children is the earliest intervention there is. We need more trained and qualified DCF workers who can handle our kids with mental illness.

We need court officers who have the expertise and knowledge to redirect mentally ill children away from the juvenile justice system. We need a better understanding of what shackling a nonviolent, mentally ill child does to them emotionally.

We need more help managing them in an alternative incarceration setting that therapeutic based. I believe with all my heart that we can change things for the children in our state or I wouldn't be here tonight.

I believe, as most of us do, that our children are our most valuable and precious assets. I hope that this can be a turning point in our state. Our children are depending on us.

Let's place their trust in us once again. Let's put the children first. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you tonight.

REP. MERRILL: I don't even know what to say. [inaudible] Where is your daughter?

JENNIFER BERTRAND: Alexis just came home two weeks ago. We just got her home two weeks ago, and it was a fight to get her home. They wanted to extend her parole for no reason. They wanted to offer her more services through DCF until she was 21.

Alexis right now is enrolled in Sommers High School. She is graduating this year. She's got most of her credits, and went to her first dance Sunday night in two years.

REP. MERRILL: Well, I guess I feel a little better. I don't even know what to ask. Clearly, we have to ask for some answers from this system that's failing so dramatically. I don't even know what to say. Anybody else got any questions?

REP. TERCYAK: Thank you very much for coming before us today with your testimony. It's very important for our miserable understanding of mental health and the issues short of how we deal with them right now.

If somebody in the family gets a horrible physical diagnosis for most diseases, you know, diagnosis of a chronic or fatal disease, the families aren't too surprised when as a society, we have an idea of what to expect.

One of our problems with the mental health system, I think, is that nobody knows what's going on. The illness is a secret. What happens to people and their families is a secret too.

Thank you very, very much. If we're going to make progress, it's because of stuff like this and your testimony. Thank you.

JENNIFER BERTRAND: No, thank you. Thank you very much.

REP. WALKER: First of all, thank you for testifying, and I hope that you will continue to keep bringing this issue out more and more.

But I have one key question. When they talked to you about places, did they explain the ramifications of what was going to happen in the process when you signed the form for the FOYSEN?

JENNIFER BERTRAND: Absolutely not. The youth officer in our town was the one who approached my husband and I with the FOYSEN. Alexis was not in any trouble legally. She wasn't breaking the law, and staying out at night is not breaking the law.

He explained to us that it was a very simple procedure, and it was a petition that you put into the court that several other states use it, use it under different names, but that the judge would be extremely sympathetic to what was going on.

That even on the FOYSEN that we filled out, and the youth officer was the one who actually put that into the court for us, we wrote down on there under comments that Alexis does have a mental illness and suffers from depression.

REP WALKER: Are there any support groups or anything of other families that are going through this? Has that come around?

I would be curious to know if there are more families that are having the same situation. If you hear of any, please let them know to talk to us, please.

JENNIFER BERTRAND: I will.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Next we have Carl Guerriere.

CARL GUERRIERE: Good evening, and I also would like to iterate that I've been coming here for five years, and it's great to have faces look back at you and have people actually ask you questions.

I know that the evening is long, but I think for everybody, even those of us in the audience, it's great to have that change.

So good evening, and glad to be here, and thank you for letting me speak. My name is Carl Guerriere, and I'm Director of the Greater Hartford Literacy Council.

The Literacy Council works with individuals and organization to improve literacy services so that all persons can reach their fullest potential.

I'm here tonight to urge you to support the Governor's budget and invest additional funds for adult education.

Although the proposed budget calls for an increase of approximately $2.5 million over the current budget, this number still falls short of the funds needed to address the demand, not need, for services as well as reach previous funding levels for the department.

You may know that the Bureau of Career and Adult Education is now the Bureau of Early Childhood, Career, and Adult Education. This consolidation did not occur to enhance program outcomes, but to pragmatically deal with severe cuts in the department's budget.

Additional funds are needed to restore the bureau to its previous staffing levels, as well as to provide more money for services and building the bureau's infrastructure.

More financial support is needed for technology, including the date management system, student assessment, and building the capacity of the LEAs and community-based organizations that receive state funds.

By investing in adult education services, the adults that not only need but also want these services, we are investing in Connecticut's incumbent and future workforce and families.

Investment in literacy and education services translates to a stronger workforce and an engine of economic development.

Connecticut has not lost population the last few years because of a growing immigrant population. This target population wants and should get the education services it needs.

It is essential for our state to reconceptualize education as an engine for economic development.

Adult basic education courses are not only found in our cities' and towns' high schools, but in our state's one-stop centers, prisons, family resource centers, and workplaces.

Connecticut has been a national leader in funding programs that help children become ready for school. However, the public policy must reflect the connection between adult and childhood education.

Monies invested in raising literacy and education levels for adults are, in effect, double-duty dollars because they provide positive results for adults and their children.

Over the past three years, the 19 to 21 and 22 to 24 age groups have shown increases of 15% and 20%, respectively.

In 2004, nearly 5,000 high school diplomas were award through the Credit Diploma, External Diploma, and GED programs. These programs provide a very important second chance for younger and older adults to become more productive citizens.

By investing in adult education services and the adults that want them, we are avoiding much more costly expenditures down the road.

Investments in adult education services have numerous other benefits for our state residents, as literacy is integrally linked with positive health outcomes, children's academic achievement, increased citizen participation, and the reduction in poverty and crime.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Questions? Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: No, I don't have a question. Carl and I go back quite a while. When I first met him, he was with Literacy Volunteers, and then he became the head of the Mayor's Task Force on Literacy.

If you look at his statistical data that's on the next page, it's overwhelming. I had the pleasure of serving on that task force with him.

He was very instrumental in the community center to help me get a library so that the kids there would have an opportunity to read. He gives away on a constant basis so the kids can have them to take home. He truly believes in this issue, and I believe education is the way out of poverty.

Two statistics he's told me, long time ago, state 41% of Hartford's adults cannot read at a third-grade level, and 75% of those incarcerated cannot either. We have a major problem if you don't address those problems.

The educational level of a child now is dependent on the education level of the parent. We have so many kids who dropped out of school, babies having babies, that we have major problems across this country, but I have major problems in this city. I thank Carl for all the work that he goes.

REP. MERRILL: Nicely said. Thank you.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: We were supposed to be out tonight. We're here for the public.

CARL GUERRIERE: If you want to know what works, intensive case management by people who care. We've developed a program. We've got a quarter of a million dollars from the state to do a program for welfare moms and workforce literacy program.

We're showing very positive results, Marie, which we will share with you. We're in the process of designing a program for a low-literate youth right now.

And again, the models we look at is, if you have people who care about the kids or the adults, and you do what needs to be done, you're going to have positive results.

REP. MERRILL: Good message. Thank you very much. Next we have Arlene Pedone.

BOBBY POOL: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and Members of the Committee.

My name is Bobby Pool. I am the President of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, representing in excess of 145 public education school districts around the State out of a total of approximately 169 school districts and regional educational systems.

I would like to introduce Arlene Pedone, who is our Vice President for Government Affairs, who will be testifying this evening.

ARLENE PEDONE: Thank you. Good evening, almost good morning. CABE supports the proposal to fund the special education cost, excess cost that exceeds four and a half times the average per-pupil cost. We urge you to raise the proposed cap which limits the full funding of this grant.

While we recognize that the proposal is $25 million increase over the 2004-2005 budget, this is the only safety net for some of our school districts.

You must understand that these placements are dictated through court hearings, hearing officers that are required by state and federal law.

To give you an example, in Bethel, where I am Vice Chair of the Bethel Board of Education, our special education tuition costs increased 1%, total cost increase through our next budget. This is an increase of nearly $300,000.

Our average, funding for a student to be placed out of our district is approximately $50,000. With another $45,000 going toward transportation cost, it significantly impacts where we spend our dollars for our students.

The proposal to limit the education cost-sharing grant increases in the 2005-2006 budget to 2% will unfortunately not allow our district to even keep up with the rate of inflation.

These are costs that are fixed through collective bargaining agreements, through contractual obligations.

Again, I'll give you an example that you can understand somewhere where we are in Bethel. The overall dollars that have increased in the budget, the percentage is increased. However, the dollars have not.

In Bethel, we have an increase that we are requesting in our budget of nearly 8.4%. That does not include new initiatives.

These are going to be costs that we're incurring due to healthcare, health insurance, salaries, contractual obligations, transportation costs, and our special ed budgets.

So at 8.4%, we're going to our community requesting this amount, and they're looking, and they're saying to us, what are you doing to improve student achievement? We're doing nothing basically with that percentage.

We also strongly support the proposal to provide additional financial support to magnet schools and Open Choice programs.

The increase in the magnet school subsidy, as well as the increase in support for districts receiving students in Open Choice, will help promote the stability and viability of these important programs.

CABE supports the creation of a statewide competitive grant program for early childhood programs which include public and private partnerships.

It is important to remember that there are children who are currently unable to access quality early childhood programs in all communities.

In Bethel, we're noticing a disturbing trend where we have a decreased number in students who are in Bethel and enrolled in the preschool programs. As we know, this is the foundation for success.

We also thank you for your time that you have taken, for your previous funding that you provided to us.

We ask that you look over the testimony this evening that I have not reached in view of the late hour, and that we urge the State to make its commitment to public education.

We invite you to come to our schools. We have a number of learning initiatives, professional learning communities, that we have pyramids of intervention that are working and working well in Bethel.

Our students have achieved a greater rate than they have before. Our test scores have increased, and we're going something that's right.

We've added approximately 1% additional cost in our budget that we're asking our taxpayers to fund for further initiatives, to deal with those programs that we feel will [inaudible] students' achievement. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I just wanted to ask you a question. You said you've seen a decrease. Is the pre-K? Do you have any idea why? So you charge something for kids to go to school? Is there a sliding scale that you're working with that you charge to the kids in pre-K?

ARLENE PEDONE: We are seeing it in the community as far as our pre-K program we call Circle of Friends. We have an increased enrollment in that area.

However, the private nursery schools in the area are seeing a decrease in the number of students. That's all right.

REP. MERRILL: Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Bob and Arlene. I want you to know I normally get very nervous when I see two local elected Democrats in one place at the same time in my district, but it's good to see you both.

Just very quickly, in your handwritten testimony, did you mention support or lack thereof of charter schools, and if not, you heard the testimony before, do you support the expense of charter schools and the funding of the charter schools?

ARLENE PEDONE: This is the reason that I had mentioned some of the initiatives that we're doing, and I gave the examples in Bethel, and I'd be happy to have you come and look at some of those.

Our pyramids of intervention, our professional learning communities, these are things that we are seeing being met with great success, and it echoes some of what the testimony earlier that I've heard.

I did not hear, unfortunately, all of the success stories from the charter schools, but we recognize the one-on-one instructions, the early interventions that are so necessary and vital to the success of our students, and we feel that we're able to deliver that in Bethel.

We would like to see that spread through the state. As a matter of fact, our principal, Alan Camille, has been involved in the groundwork on professional learning communities, and does testify and does travel nationwide to promote this exact program.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: But CABE doesn't have a position either way on the charter schools themselves?

ARLENE PEDONE: Charter schools, to my knowledge, and I'll also put this over to Bob, does not have a direct relationship with the individual districts. I hope that answers.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you very much for coming out all this way.

ARLENE PEDONE: Thank you so much, and thank you for staying so late.

REP. MERRILL: I have to go backwards here, because I missed someone. John Sackler? Sorry about that.

JOHN SACKLER: You gave me time to tear up my speech. I'm going to return to the subject of charter schools. I think I will skip most of my speech. I'd like to reopen some of the discussion that started earlier because I thought it was very productive.

The one thing I'd like to point out though is that charter schools are racking up a very impressive record here in Connecticut. I think most people know about Amistad, which is producing remarkable results.

We also have a wonderful school called Elm City, which is producing incredible results in the kindergarten and first-grade students.

We've got Integrated Day, which is one of the top middle schools in the state of Connecticut, top [inaudible] school. We've got six out of seven charter middle schools are leading their district in performance, CMT performance.

We also have some of our charter schools who are taking our toughest students. We've got Stanford Academy and Trailblazers, and Common Ground.

We saw Dominique from Common Ground. The direct of Common Ground told me that the district tends to push the toughest students into that school.

I think one of the things that we have to begin to do when we evaluate schools, and especially charter schools, is look at how the kids progress in their education, where they're starting from, and where they're ending up.

In the case of Amistad, we know the kids come into school on average two full grade levels behind, and by eighth grade, they've got CMT scores that rival Greenwich, so there's a tremendous amount of good news coming from that sector.

To try to distill the good news into the critical lessons, I think we've learned that when placed in the right setting, most children can succeed at school and get prepared for college, irrespective of household income, race, or the educational level of their parents, or even parental support. I think that's tremendously important and very positive.

I'm not saying that any of these factors are irrelevant. Household income, educational level of the parents, parental support, they all can be rescue mechanisms for kids, but I think we evidence that a great school can also rescue a kid who otherwise doesn't receive adequate support at home.

Second lesson is that we're seeing the emergence of a number of organizations that know how to create [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 3A to Tape 3B.]

--which has 38 schools around the country, and they regularly produce great schools, and this ability to replicate is very important because it offers communities an opportunity to create a great school with a high degree of confidence that what they see is what they'll get.

The third point I'd to make is that the cost to run these great schools is actually no more than what we're spending on public education today.

Amistad operates its program for $10,500 per capita. To run that program, they have to fundraise, between per capita spent and facilities, about $4,000 a student.

Going back to one of the earlier questions, I think we should understand that part of the secret of Amistad Academy and Elm City has been their unusual ability to fundraise.

Even though they continue to spend much less than New Haven Public, they spend more than most of their charter school brethren. That financial problem confounds our ability to really evaluate these schools.

You heard Alex talk about his desire to see all these schools fairly and adequately funded as a starting point. I think, in fact, that would be the fair starting point.

Then if they don't perform, the State Department of Education should step in and shut them down. But to take a school that's receiving half the money of the other public schools in the district and to impose a harsh evaluation risks being unfair.

REP. MERRILL: I'm sorry, I don't want to stop you, but I think we need to cut off. If you have a final point you want to make?

JOHN SACKLER: I think the final point I'd like to make is that everybody wants to see the districts do better, but I think we have to recognize that we don't have a proven method to reform districts.

One of the things that struck me when I took the data from the [inaudible] districts, seven communities, Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, New London, New Britain, Waterbury, Linden, every one of those seven communities produces essentially the same CMT result. About 30% of kids in eighth grade pass the 8^th grade CMT, and 70% fail.

The fact that every one of seven districts with the same demographic background produces the same result is very significant. It means that we have some very deeply ingrained systemic issues that are not going to be easy to resolve.

We have to try to resolve them, and what I would urge the Legislature to try to do is to find ways to exercise tough love with the districts and create a strong incentive and motivation to do much better with the kids. Motivation is critical.

The second thing I'd encourage the Legislature to do is to support the creation of great schools, not under the district management, and the state-chartered public school model is an opportunity to do that, so working from the inside and from the outside simultaneously is our best opportunity for system-wide reform.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Questions anyone? Thank you very much. We've all had these conversations with you. I'm sure they'll continue. Thank you. Next we have Diane Manning.

DIANE MANNING: Good evening. My name is Diane Manning. I'm President and CEO of United Services, which is a private, nonprofit agency that provides mental health and addiction services in the northeastern part of the state.

We provide services under contract for the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Department, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, DCF, DSS, and we have contracts with our school districts, the towns, hospitals, employers in our area to provide services.

I'm speaking to you today representing the Connecticut Community Provider Association.

We are very pleased that the Governor's budget annualizes community service bids in the corrections and judicial systems.

Community providers like United Services provide an extensive array of residential job training and counseling services to assist adolescents and adults to move from the incarceration system back to the community.

In our particular case, United Services provides an opportunity for juveniles through our juvenile justice center to be able to learn what we call pro-social activities, positive values and behaviors so they will not enter the juvenile or adult correctional system in the future.

We have four years of experience. We have had one re-arrest in that four years. Very good success rate, very low cost.

We appreciate the 4% COLA recommended by the Governor in the correction and judicial budgets, as well as the other State agency budgets. It's crucial for the operation of our community programs.

The proposed increase, however, does little to narrow the wage disparity between public sector and private employees. The FY '06 State employee contracts will rise by 4.5% for wages alone, and in FY '07 these contracts will grow by an additional 4.5%.

The proposed budget increase for private providers is 4% for the first year, and does not provide any increase in the second year.

In fact, the proposed cap on administrative expenses in the FY '07 budget actually represents a cut in funding of approximately 1%.

To describe the situation in another way, while State employee contracts will grow by 9%, private provider funding will increase by a net of 3%. The gap, now 49%, in employee wages will get wider and wider.

And in our case, we supplement most of our State funding with fundraising and fees from Medicaid and HUSKY, and as you know, those rates have not increased. We squeeze to the point there is no room to continue to pay our costs and provide the same level of services.

For United Services, 62% of our funding is even eligible for that COLA. [inaudible] some of the daily challenges I face in running a community provider agency, but I'd like to give you some of the detail.

In addition to meeting my contractual obligation for wages, benefits, and hours of work as a unionized provider, I have to cover the cost of operating the agency.

The rate for our oil went up 59% this year. We had locked in a rate of $1.129 per gallon because we were able to buy in bulk for 14 sites.

That rate locked in this year at $1.799, which is much cheaper than actually you could be paying on the open market right now, but it's a 59% increase in our energy cost.

Our healthcare premiums went up 15%. Liability insurance, 4.5%. The GSA rate for mileage went up 8%. It cost us more than $300,000 to make ourselves HIPAA compliant, and we're not done yet.

We must be licensed and accredited, and the fee for the accreditation is $25,000 a year. We need you to think about those costs.

We urge you to review the funding proposed for community providers in the correction, judicial, and other State agency budgets, and continue your commitment to the private provider index and initiative.

Please make sure that the funding at least keeps pace with the wages received by state employees. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you, Diane. Questions. Representative O'Neill?

REP. O'NEILL: No. I'll try to keep it concise. Were you here, and this is sort of a glancing blow, but since what you provide is mental health services for young people, were you here when the lady described what happened to her daughter?

DIANE MANNING: I was here, yes.

REP. O'NEILL: Obviously you're not familiar with the details of that case, but I think most of us were sort of shocked and horrified by it.

Is that a substantial outlier in your experience, or put it another way, if she'd been in your service area, in northeastern Connecticut, and they had contacted you, do you think you would have been able to provide, based on what you know, which isn't a whole lot because you don't have a lot of detail, but if she had depression and was reacting apparently to some drug that she had been taking to deal with depression, that triggered a whole bunch of adverse reactions, is that something that could have been handled in the community through your agency?

DIANE MANNING: Absolutely. In the best of all worlds, that family would have been able to access the Children's and Emergency Mobile Crisis Services that are funded though DCF.

In our case, a team would have gone to the home to work with the family in the home, would have provided immediate treatment services, would have been able to divert out of the system, would have provided what's called care coordination for the family to help them wend their way through the system so they wouldn't have been alone.

What was unfortunate here is a family that was really trying to work their way through the system alone. There are services in place. It's regrettable that they somehow didn't find them, but they are in place.

In our particular case, they would have accessed them through the Emergency Mobile Crisis Services and care coordination.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I just have one quick question. If a person isn't aware of these particular services that are available, if they call Infoline, are you or some entity equivalent to you on their list of agencies that they provide for services?

DIANE MANNING: In our particular case, we are actually hooked up with Infoline so that if someone calls in a psychiatric crisis, they automatically are rolled right over to us. We work 24/7.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much, Diane. Next is Jo Ellen Lawson.

JO ELLEN LAWSON: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and other Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Jo Ellen Lawson, and I am the founder and President of the Connecticut Foundation for Environmentally Safe Schools, or ConnFESS for short.

On Sept. 17, 2003, our nonprofit, grassroots organization presented an upbeat press conference at the LOB to celebrate the passage of an act concerning indoor air quality in schools by a nearly unanimous vote.

Senators Williams and Prague, as well as Representatives Godfrey, Widlitz, Giannaros, Mushinsky, Willis, Stone, Tymniak, and Orange were among the 100-plus people who attended this special event.

The signing of Public Act 03-220 into State law was profoundly meaningful to our members, as many of us have been irrevocably harmed by indoor air pollution in a school.

I, myself, am a disabled teacher whose 23-year special ed career was ended as a result of mold contamination at the McKinley School. I now have permanent lung and neurological damage.

At that time, we were encouraged by the fact that Connecticut now had one of the most comprehensive laws dealing with indoor air quality in schools in the nation.

Like other states with similar laws, local school districts were now required to adopt and implement an IAQ management program and report on the progress of this program on an annual basis.

Our enthusiasm was soon tempered when the policies, regulations and structure essential to effectively implementing these most basic provisions of this law failed to materialize.

From October 2003 to the present, our members have had numerous contacts with Dr. Betty Sternberg, Commissioner of Education, and her staff, regarding the implementation of An Act Concerning Indoor Air Quality in Schools.

We have consistently and repeatedly been told that a lack of expertise, staff, and resources compromise the ability of the State Department of Education to both comply with and enforce the law.

Clearly, it is unrealistic to expect the SDE to carry out the requirements of Public Act 03-220 if they do not have the means to do so.

Recently, I wrote to Dr. Sternberg, urging her to request whatever help her agency would require to enable them to establish a statewide definition of what an acceptable IAQ management plan is, develop a model of an IAQ management plan for use by local school districts, and create a surveillance system to track the level of compliance demonstrated by local school districts in the process of adopting and implement IAQ management plans.

The members of ConnFESS propose that an Indoor Environmental Quality Management Plan Coordinator be established in the SDE to accomplish these essential tasks. I have attached a job and qualifications description to my testimony.

I am joined tonight by other ConnFESS members including Diane Ethier, June Logie, and Kevin Daley, who is also the President of the Connecticut PTA.

Dr. John Santilli of Fairfield, an expert in the field, an allergist and immunologist, was sorry that he could not be here tonight, but plans to send in testimony in strong support of establishing such a position based on his research. He's a leading national expert on this particular issue.

In their testimony, they will elaborate further on the reasons why an IAQ management plan coordinator is sorely needed in order to fulfill the promise of an act concerning indoor air quality in schools. Thank you for this opportunity to bring this to your attention.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. I assume there are others who will follow you along these lines.

JO ELLEN LAWSON: Yes. I'll just make one quick point. These are the nine children who testified in 2003. They were all adversely affected by indoor air quality.

This is one of the children. This is what he looks like. This is what his school made him look like. He had anaphylactic reactions that nearly killed him on two occasions. This was before the bill.

After the bill, this beautiful girl, her name is Kaitlin, she now has hypersensitivity pneumonitis, a life-threatening illness, that she acquired as a direct result of mold exposure in her school.

Please do not make me go back and talk to these children and tell me that the bill that they came up here to testify for isn't working. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just for those of us who are less knowledgeable, what's pneumonitis?

JO ELLEN LAWSON: Hypersensitivity pneumonitis is a severe lung disease. Maybe Diane Ethier, who also has that, we have several children in the State, but it's a lower respiratory illness that is not curable. It's a four-stage disease, and it is potentially fatal.

Kaitlin is unable to go into a lot, those of us who've been exposed very often have difficulty going into environments that are not pristine. Kaitlin has missed a full year of school. She still is primarily homebound tutored.

For those of us who've had these type of illnesses, just being in a building like this that has poor, I'm sorry, but it does, poor air quality, I'm affected right now.

I'm swelling up, and tomorrow I will be sick. I hope that answered our question. I have a fact sheet I will get to you, specifically on hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. I think I speak for others when I say sometimes we fear that we ourselves make people sick, so if it's the building, that's better than being us, but it's not good. We recognize this.

JO ELLEN LAWSON: No. In fact, we've had a wonderful relationship with most of you up here, and again, there were only two people who did not vote for the bill so we thank you. And none of those people are here.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Next I have Gannon Long, coming up with a student, Miguel.

GANNON LONG: Two students.

GANNON LONG: Is it all right? I was going to say something and have them say something. Is it all right if they just sit here?

We had a student who I had submitted testimony from him. He was actually sick and was unable to make it so we pulled in his last-minute savior replacement, which is Evan Thompson.

Good evening, Representative Merrill, Senator Harp, those of you who I know, it's nice to see you again. It's really a pleasure to be here today.

My name is Gannon Long. I'm the Project Director of Readers as Leaders, a program that is run by Everybody Wins! CT. I am here today to ask you to maintain the funding in the Governor's budget that is currently allocated for Readers as Leaders.

Readers as Leaders started three years ago at Fox Middle School and Martin Luther King Elementary School in the north end of Hartford.

In 2003, we began serving students at Burr School in the south end where Braulio goes, and in 2004 we began serving students at Noah Webster School in the west end where Miguel and Evan both go.

This year we will distribute roughly 2,200 books to 550 students in Hartford. Next year we plan to expand so that we are in five schools, serving roughly 625 students and distributing 2,500 books.

Readers as Leaders targets middle school students who are generally average academic achievers, which is a population that can slip through the cracks for lack of attention.

Our middle school leaders are given the responsibility to be role models by reading once a week for four weeks to a student in kindergarten or first grade. The younger students then take home each of the four books to keep.

Since there is a total of four four-week reading cycles, the leaders read to four different students throughout the year.

This gives them needed practice at meeting new people and making them comfortable. At the end of each four-week cycle, the leaders each take home a book as well.

Given that adult literacy in Hartford is about 50%, Readers as Leaders fills an important gap by getting books into the homes of many families that otherwise wouldn't otherwise have them.

Our program also gives young children an early, positive experience with literature in a comfortable one-on-one setting.

The young readers in our program really appreciate the personal attention that they get from their mentors, and as you'll hear in a moment from Miguel and Evan, the mentors enjoy the attention they receive as well.

Since our primary mission is to build self-esteem, character, and leadership among our students, we provide leadership training starting with a retreat at Camp Jewell in the beginning of the year, and continuing with more classroom training sessions throughout the year.

To increase parental involvement, this year we are planning a short workshop for parents on reading to their young children. As you can see, Readers as Leaders provides many forms of enrichment for our students.

More than anything else, the reason I believe in Readers as Leaders so much, is that I have seen our students in action, and it is really a pleasure to watch them read.

Within my testimony I have enclosed a list of dates, times and locations where our reading sessions take place, and I invite each of you and all of your colleagues to observe our program.

I hope that you will continue to support our program so that we can continue to provide quality enrichment programming to Hartford's youth. Thank you very much for your time.

EVAN THOMPSON: Representative Merrill, Senator Harp and Members of the Committee, hello, my name is Evan Thompson. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak today.

I'm in eighth grade at Noah Webster School and I'm here to support Readers as Leaders Program where I volunteer.

MIGUEL CORDERO: Good evening, Representative Merrill, Senator Harp, and Members of the Committee. My name is Miguel Cordero and I'm in the eighth grade at Noah Webster School.

Thank you for giving me the chance to speak tonight. I am here today to ask you to support the Readers as Leaders Program, where I am also a volunteer.

EVAN THOMPSON: In Readers as Leaders, my classmates and I read once a week to kindergarten and first grade students in our school. We read to four different students for four weeks each.

MIGUEL CORDERO: We give our students the four books we read to them. At the end of each cycle, we also receive a book to take home.

EVAN THOMPSON: My favorite part is being a role model to the students I read to. My second student started out very shy and quiet, but as we kept reading together, friendlier towards me.

Now when he sees me in the hallways, he smiles and says hello. When I read to my kids, I feel like I'm doing something good for them. I feel like I am their big brother that reads them a story.

They like to ask questions. For example, when we read Carlos in the Squash Plant, but students ask questions like what size of vegetables is Carlos growing and I answer him back with giving them clues from the story.

MIGUEL CORDERO: My favorite part of this program is reading to the younger kids. The whole year, I have not missed any of the reading sessions.

I like reading to my students because I like it when the kids ask a lot of questions. It tells me that they're having fun and that they're listening.

They are always excited to see the books we bring to them. When I see my students in the hallway, they will come up to me and give me a hug. I like being a role model.

EVAN THOMPSON: Reading to the little kids has helped me to make friends with some seventh-graders. I also got closer with some of my eighth grade friends.

MIGUEL CORDERO: During the leadership retreat at Camp Jewell last October, I made a lot of new friends from both my school and the other schools, Burr and Fox.

I like getting to know other students who are interested in doing well in school and in being role models, like I am. Readers as Leaders gives me a chance to do that.

EVAN THOMPSON: I have gotten perfect attendance for my eighth grade year. Also, I have not missed one day of my reading session.

I feel like people should see what we are doing. I hope that you will keep supporting Readers as Leaders, so that other students can get a chance to have the same opportunities to receive books, make friends, and be a role model like I have. Thank you.

MIGUEL CORDERO: I feel like I have gotten a lot out of this program. We go to Camp Jewell, we make new friends, and we help other students.

I hope you will continue to support Readers as Leaders, so that other kids can get involved, so they can have the same positive experiences that I have had. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Well done. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, yes. Okay, next we have Lorie McGarrahan.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for staying so late. My name is Lorie McGarrahan and I'm here to speak in support of more staffing and resources for the Office of the Victim Advocate.

As I'm sure you're aware, anyone speaking here in support of the Office of the Victim Advocate is not here because something good has happened, but because a tragedy has occurred in their family.

I'm here because Jim Papillo, the state Victim Advocate, and Merit Lajoie have been helping my family in their pursuit of justice for my grandfather, John Coleman.

John Coleman was a wonderful man who was actively involved in the lives of his family, especially his great grandchildren.

He went out on the Friday before Christmas 2003 to mail his Christmas cards and to visit his wife's grave. He was on his way home from Mt. St. Benedict's Cemetery when he was hit head-on at an intersection by a woman turning left.

The driver of the other car refused treatment at the scene and was given a ticket for an improper turn.

My grandfather was transported to St. Francis Hospital with a neck injury and major internal injuries. The police did not conduct an accident scene investigation, check for witnesses or take measurements.

When we asked why, they said that my grandfather was very coherent at the scene and they did not consider his injuries life threatening, although the EMT's report said spinal cord injury.

My grandfather passed away after three weeks in the ICU at St. Francis. The ICU doctor had my mother sign permission for an autopsy, so the police would have evidence for a charge of negligent homicide.

The coroner's office called that evening and said he did not need to do an autopsy because the death was definitely caused by the accident and he was writing death from blunt trauma on the death certificate. No autopsy was performed.

We notified the Hartford Police when my grandfather died, so the other driver could be charged. We've had an extremely frustrating experience with the Hartford Police.

We were given misinformation and had great difficulty actually getting to speak to anyone. On one occasion, I spoke to a Sergeant, who later told me he'd only spoken to me because he felt sorry for me because no one was answering or returning my calls.

I eventually scheduled a meeting with Assistant Chief Jones of the Hartford Police and the day before the meeting I called the Office of the Victim Advocate for the first time.

I was very relieved to finally speak to someone who was genuinely sympathetic and willing to help. Before I spoke to Jim, I had gotten the attitude that my grandfather had been elderly and since there had not been an investigation or an autopsy we should drop the whole matter.

Jim assigned Merit Lajoie of the Office of the Victim Advocate to attend the meeting with us. We're very lucky that she did because when Jim Papillo later requested a copy of the full police file, Merit was able to see that some items we had seen in the file were not in the materials sent by the Hartford Police to Jim.

Jim helped me write to the State's Attorney and request a complete review of the case. We've been told that because the police did not investigate and the coroner did not do an autopsy the driver cannot be charged for my grandfather's death.

We're intent on pursuing the matter with Jim's help. We're supposed to meet with Chief State's Attorney, Chris Morano, but so far, have not been able to set a date and time.

Jim and his staff of one do an incredible job servicing crime victims, especially considering the fact they're the only people in the office.

I don't know how they can keep track of all the cases they're involved with, attend hearings and meetings and all of the other things they do to help families like mine.

The people of Connecticut need the type of support and assistance that Jim and Merit provide. They need an adequately staffed Office of the Victim Advocate to help them seek justice.

Although, I know the budget is tight, a State agency, like the Office of the Victim Advocate, must have the staff and financial support necessary to do the job it does for all of the people in the state whose families experience tragedy and need their help.

If Jim and Merit were not helping us, I would still be waiting to hear from the Hartford Police. Because of the Office of the Victim Advocate, I at least have some hope for justice.

I do not feel that paying a motor vehicle fine for an improper turn and going on with her life is a just consequence for taking someone's life. My grandfather, John Coleman, was a wonderful man and he deserves justice. Thank you.

SEN. HARP: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Thank you so much for sharing your story. Our next speaker is April Hooley. Diane Ethier?

DIANE ETHIER: Senator Harp and Members of the Committee, my name is Diane Ethier. I am the Vice President and the Legislative Co-Chair for the Connecticut Foundation for Environmentally Safe Schools, ConnFESS.

I am here tonight to support Jo Ellen Lawson's request for the establishment of an Indoor Environmental Quality Management Plan Coordinator for the State Department of Education.

The State Department of Education is understaffed, to the point where they themselves admit they cannot address the critically important issue of the health of the school facilities.

Funding is needed so State Department of Education can hire the staff to address this issue.

The Indoor Air Quality in Schools law went into affect on July 1, 2003. In the first section, there are three specific mandates that deal with the development of effective of IAQ management plans and the role of the State Department of Education. They are as follows.

Number one, each local and regional and board of education shall adopt and implement an indoor air quality program.

Number two, all the boards of education have to report annually to the Commission of Education on its facilities and on the implementation that they have taken on their indoor air quality program.

Thirdly, the Commissioner of Education then has to do a report to the Connecticut General Assembly on these issues.

At this point, [inaudible] and the Legislative intent and I checked this all today with Representative Bob Godfrey who did actually craft the language.

The Legislative intent of the law was that information about the adoption and implementation of IAQ Management Plans be accurately transmitted from local boards of education to the Commission of Education and ultimately to the Members of the Connecticut General Assembly.

Unfortunately to this point, that is not happening. What the State Department of Education did, was advice an existing form, the ED050 School Facilities Form.

Again, they said it was because of lack of staff and lack of access to appropriate consultants.

The revised ED050 Form doesn't comply with the mandates of an Indoor Air Quality in Schools Act because it only asks superintendents to describe the condition of school facilities and not the actions taken to implement IAQ Management Plans.

Nobody reading these forms can tell whether a school has a management plan or not. Again, a lack of staff resources and expertise contributed to a distribution of a fundamentally flawed survey.

The survey collected data that we believe does not accurately show the environmental conditions in Connecticut school.

The results of the education survey show that 80% of our schools have no or only a few minor IAQ problems. This is not consistent with any other IAQ surveys or asthma studies that have been conducted in both Connecticut and nationally.

The results of the ED050 surveys also contradict personal accounts of teachers and parents of students who actually attend these schools. The report was over a year and a half late, and again, we were told this occurred to lack of staff resources and expertise.

Over and over again we hear the same mantra, lack of staff resources and expertise are impeding the State Department of Education's ability to fully comply with their role as mandated by Public Act 03-220.

The State Department of Education is need of an IAQ Management Plan Coordinator to be in compliance with Connecticut's IAQ schools law and to ensure that Connecticut schools are safe, healthy and effective learning environments. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Representative Kirkley-Bey?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I just wanted to ask, you're saying that you need to have this position. What is the amount of funding you're asking for?

DIANE ETHIER: If you saw Jo Ellen's testimony with the requirements for the position, we're saying entry level staff. It doesn't have to be anything with any expertise.

REP. MERRILL: Great. Thank you very much. Next, June Chiaia-Logie.

JUNE CHIAIA-LOGIE: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and other Members of the Appropriations Committee.

My name is June Chiaia-Logie and in March 2003, I testified in favor of an act concerning indoor air quality in schools.

I am a mother of two children who had to be removed from their school due to poor environmental conditions that made them physically ill.

Their symptoms completely disappeared after they stopped attending school there. Failure on local officials to address and resolve poor indoor air quality problems in an open responsible and timely manner only exacerbated them.

The evaluations and recommendations of well respected industrial hygienist on how to best remedy these health hazards were consistently and blatantly disregarded.

Teachers who had publicly acknowledged health problems and building hazards were intimidated and punished.

Lack of adequate oversight and assistance from both the state department and local health level made it necessary for parents, staff and local police department to go to the federal government for intervention.

There is currently a Federal EPA investigation into the mismanagement of these issues.

When Public Act 03-220 was enacted in July 2003, it was our greatest hope that the passage of this new law would significantly improve how school environmental issues would be resolved.

However, it has been a year and a half since and to date, Easton does not have an Indoor Air Management Quality Program.

At the September Board of Education meeting, I asked the Director of Operation for Easton's Indoor Air Quality Management Plan and I was told we have Tools for Schools and that an Indoor Air Quality Management Plan would be forthcoming.

Weeks passed and I contacted Karen Flanagan at the State Department of Education. She informed me that she would not police this issue and the only suggestion she gave me was to fully request an IAQ Management Plan.

My FOIA request revealed that Easton does not have an IAQ Management plan or Tools for Schools.

Late September, I called David Wedge from the State Department of Education requesting a copy of Easton's ED050.

It revealed that Samuel Staples Elementary School's indoor air quality was rated a three, which means a few minor issues or complaints, which are currently being addressed.

When I confronted the Director of Operations about this, he freely admitted to me that he did not believe that this rating was accurate.

There are numerous reasons why the three rating was not appropriate. The National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety report, Samuel Staples Elementary School stated that 87 out of 115 staff members reported upper respiratory problems and of those 51%, 59 out 115 people stated that their symptoms improved after being away from the building.

Mid December 2004, the Superintendent permanently evacuated and relocated more than 400 teachers and students from their classrooms because of health complaints and the detection of Stachybotrys mold contamination and other health hazards. This school will be closed in 2005.

These situations have led to criminal indictments, lawsuits and many years in which students and staff have suffered.

Without oversight, enforcement and accountability for poor Indoor Air Quality in Schools, there is no way to prevent this from happening again.

This is why I beseech you to establish an IAQ Management Plan Coordinator in the State Department of Education. Thank you for your time in this matter.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Mary Hamilton.

MARY HAMILTON: Good evening, Committee Members. Thank you for hearing my testimony this evening in support of additional staff positions for the Office of the Victims Advocate. My name is Mary Politchi Hamilton and I am a survivor of homicide.

My father, Joseph Politchi, was kidnapped and murdered in 1973. That's 33 years ago and the murderers have never been brought to justice.

The case is still open. However, nothing is being done to bring justice and restore my father's human dignity. I met Jim Papillo at our Survivors of Homicide function in the fall. He reached out to me and offered his assistance.

I felt respected for the first time and validated by his interest to learn more about my father's case and potentially offering help to me and my family.

Jim has put the ball in motion and thanks to his efforts, there is much movement in the case.

Accordingly, given the nature of the OVA's mandates, an increase in professional staff would only serve to better and benefit Connecticut's victims and their families like myself.

There is plenty of work to be done on behalf of those whose lives are affected with violence and tragedy, but now the time has come to balance the scales of justice.

To that end, the time has come to give more strength to the OVA. Please approve the budgetary increase. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Yes, we have Scott Hamilton?

SCOTT WILDERMAN: I asked them to sign me up to say a few words. And if he had more staff, he'd probably get the name correct. So you can guess what I'm going to be talking about.

But seriously, my name is Scott Wilderman and I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for the opportunity to say a few words about the Victims Advocate Office and the critical role that they play in helping others have a voice in a very complex judiciary system.

Now you look at me and you probably wonder how could this guy be a victim, right? Well, I'm not, but my wife is. You see, we had the American dream.

We lived in a rural shoreline town in Clinton for nearly 17 years and my wife and I have two young children. I'm the President and CEO of Career Resources. It's a nonprofit in Bridgeport. I run Welfare to Work programs, Alternative Incarceration Centers for Women and the Connecticut Works Office.

We were very involved in our community and loved our neighborhood and our friends, but this past August, our dream came crashing down.

My next-door neighbor, who was a close friend for nearly 17 years, the person that we trusted to take care of our children, a person of apparent high morals, professional education, a family man himself with three grown children and a wife as a teacher, was actually a perverse sexual deviant who was stalking and secretly videotaping my wife.

We had no idea that this was going until the night in August when my wife, Lisa, was in the bathroom getting ready for bed and she heard a sound outside the window. She had turned quickly to see a man holding a video camera and her screams brought me running and I called the police.

Seconds later, the police arrested the individual, camera in hand, and he was charged with video voyeurism, stalking and trespassing. I was shocked when they put the man in the back of the cruiser. I refused to believe it and I thought they made a mistake.

The police did an excellent job. They tried to counsel my wife that evening. They gave her their card with Jim Papillo, Office of Victims Advocate and I thought to myself, this is a clear-cut case.

They caught him red-handed. They had the video. They had several pictures of my wife, taken over a period of time. I'm sure that we would prosecute and that we would win.

It couldn't be that simple. He applied for accelerated rehab, and thanks to my wife's courageous testimony, it was denied. The Victims Advocate Office was instrumental in having us a make a statement.

The system, again, wanted to put the case to rest quickly. They felt that because this individual had no prior history, it could be brought down to a misdemeanor.

With forensic evidence not all in, for instance, he had computers, they were going to dispose of this case.

I again spoke to Jim at the Victims Advocate Office and they aggressively encouraged the State to wait until all of the evidence was in and we are still waiting.

The pre-trial date has been set for March 7^th and we do not know what to expect, but I'll tell you one thing I know for certain, that my wife will not be there.

You see, shortly after this August event, we moved and my wife has been in constant therapy. She tried to commit suicide and just yesterday, she was released from St. Rafael Psychiatric Care Unit.

My wife has been destroyed by this event. It was a breach of trust and a criminal act, but what has destroyed her most is that the system has also breached trust. We trusted the judicial process and we were foolish.

We learned that we have little rights and no voice and we cannot see tapes or what the physiological evaluation is on this fellow. The only thing that we can do is fight to be heard and this is where the Victims Advocate Office has helped.

Unfortunately, they are tremendously under-funded and understaffed. With hundreds of crimes happening each day in our State, many victims will be silenced forever.

The inability to fund the Victims Advocate Office at a level substantial enough to be heard, in effect, silences these victims.

You see, anyone can be a victim, but it is in the voice of the victim that truly counts. Don't contribute to the pain of victims across the state by not contributing fairly to this budget.

As I mentioned to you earlier in my testimony, I run an AIC for women in Bridgeport. My funding is nearly double that of the Victims Advocate Office.

It's sad to think that my wife could have received better support if she was the perpetrator than the victim. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you for your testimony. Very compelling. Next we have Kevin Daly.

KEVIN DALY: Good evening. My thanks to Representative Merrill, Senator Harp and the Committee Members for giving me an opportunity to speak.

I am Kevin Daly. I am the President of the Connecticut Parent Teacher Association, PTA. We have more than 54,000 and more than 300 PTA's in schools and communities across Connecticut.

I am here to speak in support of the proposal by Jo Ellen Lawson that you heard a few minutes ago and confess to establish an Indoor Environmental Quality Plan Manager at the Department of Education.

PTA and Connecticut PTA, we have long supported the idea that when children go to school they should be able to breathe and learn.

These days with great emphasis on student achievement thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act, we really need to set up our children with safe and productive learning environments.

Connecticut PTA has long advocated for the establish--

[Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 3B to Tape 4A.]

--an organization that would seek to establish standards and procedures for schools to follow, an organization that would report and remedy any problems that are reported by students, teachers or by families when it comes to indoor air quality.

This is really a no-brainer. It's something that should be done. PTA stands firmly behind this proposal and I urge all of you to consider it. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you so much for weighing in on this. Further comments? Thank you very much. Next we have Martin Madacks. Not here. Patricia McClellan?

PATRICIA MCCLELLAN: Good evening, Representative Fleischmann and Members of the Education Committee. My name is Pat McClellan.

In addition to my position with Early Intervention, I also work for Everybody Wins! Connecticut. I am a facilitator for Readers as Leaders, which is a division of the Everybody Wins! Connecticut at Noah Webster's Elementary Magnet School.

I was asked to speak not only because I've seen firsthand the benefits of this wonderful program, but also because I live in this community and I am a parent who was concerned about the level and quality of education that our children receive.

I was recommended to Everybody Wins! Connecticut by Mr. LaMontagne, Noah Webster's Middle School English teacher, who I have known through several venues.

I audited one of his first English classes and we published Rival School Publications last year.

When the Readers as Leaders Project Director, Gannon Long, inquired of Mr. L. if he knew someone who would be able to assist with the Readers as Leaders program at Noah Webster's School, he thought of me and I was honored.

I have been directly involved with various enrichment programs over the years either as an instructor or as a parent of a participant.

While most enrichment programs are well-intentioned, some end up being little more than daycare centers, where the rewards of your efforts are barely noticed.

I've had two children educated through the Hartford Public School system and both have received invaluable advantages from their enrichment programs.

My oldest participated in a business mentoring program in the early '90s and is now completing her Masters, while my youngest has taken her Readers as Leaders training and is now reading to her nephews even though they haven't started walking yet.

Through this program, I have watched young ladies who are typically shy, reserved, almost introverted, blossom into smiling, confident outgoing personalities.

I have seen young men who normally unruly and uncontrollable become reliable and eager to be positive role models for the younger children.

One particular young man, we'll call him Arthur to spare him any embarrassment, Miguel or Evan might know him, well, this young man I've had in my enrichment classes before. His attention span was nil and his attitude was non-responsive.

The Readers as Leaders has transformed Arthur. When we prepare for our actual one-on-one sessions, Arthur is the first one ready to go pick up his partner.

He is the first one to come to me and say, Ms. Pat, this young man doesn't have a partner this week, would you like me to read to him along with my young friend. Believe me, every week Arthur's young listeners look for him and he makes me very, very proud.

Some of the primary teachers were not so thrilled initially because they see the juvenile behavior our readers often displayed.

But after our sessions, they comment on how well our young readers conduct themselves, on how mature they are, on how their young students look forward to the reading sessions.

They have asked that we have these sessions more than once a week. I've had a young Spanish-speaking-only Hispanic mother approach me and tell me her young son is bringing his book home and is reading to her in English.

She appreciates what we are doing. She asked that we conduct additional sessions with her son because she sees the benefits.

I ask you to see your way to continuing to fund this enrichment program. I ask you as a parent and as an instructor to support our endeavors to enhance our children with leadership qualities and to inspire our young people to read and to believe they can be successful. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Senator Harp has a question for you.

SEN. HARP: That's okay, we are trying to really move people along and so I'm probably going to be shot for asking this question. You have a camp that the kids go to in the summertime to prepare for their--

PATRICIA MCCLELLAN: --they have a training session that a lot of schools attend together and there is a training session that's overnight.

GANNON LONG: I'm Gannon Long, the Project Director for Readers as Leaders. What we do is at the beginning of the year, we have leadership training from counselors from Camp Jewell, which is a YMCA camp in Colebrook and this year it was October 28^th.

But at the beginning of the year we kind of kick off the program by taking the students from the leaders from all three schools to Camp Jewell for a weekend retreat.

And there they meet the students from other schools and they also just engage in a lot of leadership activities.

And basically Camp Jewell is to put them in an environment where they can meet challenges in a safe place where they'll be able to overcome them and to help them give them that confidence.

SEN. HARP: Okay. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Next we have Beverly Keener.

BEVERLY KEENER: My name is Beverly Keener and as a formal primary teacher, I would just like to say I feel like it's time for you people to get up and stretch so that you'll pay attention perhaps to the remarks that I'm going to make.

Because I entered the room at almost age 70 with my almost age 80 spouse, and I know we're leaving a lot older and just pray that we make it back to our hometown in Northford because, ironically, we're here as victims of crime.

And it is a crime that we would be spending our evening in this manner. And I sure hope when the bell dings, you'll give me at least a few of those minutes you've given to everybody else because we may not live to see the fruition of this night, and hopefully that will be some satisfaction as I croak on the way home.

We are obviously here to support the increase in staff by just three people and you imagine at the State rate of [inaudible] how much money that must be.

I must say, I'm also a retired teacher who's going to be one of those that the gent spoke about who's going to be out to the dogs because you haven't actually funded our retirement at an appropriate level.

But if I'm not dead as a victim of crime, I guess, you know, I can always go on welfare or something else.

I know, I swear to God, but in our early days of marriage, I've learned 40 ways to cook a chicken and I can always go back there, and besides, at least he doesn't eat much.

It's got to be a test, right. Well at any rate, there are thousands of criminals currently incarcerated and you need to know they have left behind thousands of victims.

And we are not right now as those victims being served by the two people you've seen and heard discuss this evening.

My husband and I not only suffered physical bodily hurt as a result of the crimes perpetrated upon us, we also suffered enormous financial loss.

But the greatest loss has been truly the sense of personal security that you would hope, when you reach our ages, you might be able to have.

Imagine me doing the layout of my garden in a way that I can be sure I won't be killed from behind. I'll be attacked from the front and maybe I've got a fighting chance.

Our particular situation involved us with the arrest of the perpetrator approximately almost three years ago now in June of 2002.

At the point in time when the individual was initially incarcerated, we immediately became recipients of the Department of Correction Notification System.

Where there is the threat of physical or other type of harm, the notification system will allow you to know there's to be a change in location and so forth.

Although it was immediately determined that serious mental issues existed and needed to be addressed, it literally took 28 months of the imposed 36-month sentence to have the person ultimately adjudicated out of the prison in which he was housed and into Whiting Forensic Institute.

That, we thought, might be a really good thing, because this individual has needed mental health attention.

One of your other testimonies, multiple others of your testimonies, have the mental health system down to what it needed to do 32 years ago, we wouldn't perhaps be where we are at this point in time.

But that issue aside, the immediate total shock that came to us was that because the criminal was now going to be housed in the mental facility at Whiting Forensic Institute, we were no longer entitled to the right of notification.

Even though the person is still concluding the prison sentence, somehow we fell into a black hole. The case fell into a black hole.

And it literally was a black hole in which neither the judge who had been with multiple of the proceedings, there were over 30 continuances of this particular case in the period of time since the arrest in June of 2002.

The judge could do nothing. The prosecutor could do nothing. I think, Senator Harp, you have asked, or one of the other Members of the Court, I think you did, Sir, the Court Victim Advocate. The Court Victim Advocate holds your hand, has no authority beyond that really to deal in any way.

The Victim Services Head of the Department of Corrections said we can't do anything. This is a totally unique case, your right of notification is gone.

At that point in time, it was suggested, after months, literally, of trying to figure a way that we would contact in some manner or someone would try to contact the State Victim Advocate.

I have to say, that was another shock. It was only at that point in time I even knew. Jim mentioned some 900 people being served.

That's only because there are thousands of us who don't even know that office is there, and if we knew, they probably couldn't deal with us anyway because of the time factors involved. I will try to rush right along here.

I need to say that my very first phone call after this now almost 30-month period of time, my first call went to Jim's office and spoke directly to Jim on the 17^th of December of 2004.

And by the 23^rd of December, this person single-handedly had, in some manner, dismantled the brick wall that the judge, the prosecutor, Department of Corrections, everyone said here is the wall, you may no longer be notified if the person escapes custody, I'm sorry, you know, do the best you can.

Jim was able, in record time on our behalf, a six-day period, which was in the pre-holiday period and included a weekend, in that period of time he was able to accomplish what no one else could.

And hopefully out of that eventually will grow some codification of the procedural changes we definitely need.

But in conclusion, I want to say as you all drive to your home safely tonight, can reflect on our situation and realize that one man sitting over there single-handedly threw these two old fogies a lifeline that maybe, you know, we can live out the next six months before the sentence concludes.

That person did that. If he did that, think what two more staff members, what three more staff members, with just a request, would do.

In other words, the burdens we carry every day, though the tone may be light and the attempt to capture your attention and wake you up exists on my behalf, you need to know our burdens are heavy and what we're asking for, basically, is six more hands to help carry that load.

Thank you and have a safe trip home, and we will be departing right now if you don't mind.

REP. MERRILL: I have Dee Clinton.

DEE CLINTON: There wasn't one teacher or janitor that had the nerve because they were too afraid of their jobs to call OSHA, but you're dealing what now and this is another issue.

I thought it was morning. Good evening, Senator Harp, you probably heard from me about Lyme disease a whole lot of times. Representative Merrill and the Members of the Committee, my name is Dee Clinton.

Right now I've been fighting lung cancer and Lyme disease, so please forgive me because I'm going to be slow and that when that buzzer goes off, I'm going to ignore it.

I appreciate coming before the Appropriation Committee, especially about such an important issue, OVA. the Office of Victim Advocate, run by Attorney James Papillo, Ph.D., is the only completely independent agency in this State.

What he does for victims can hardly be measured in money. His office is the last stop for the victims that have been victimized by the system and often more than once.

When his office was first established, Attorney Papillo, Attorney Dan Butler, one investigating officer and a secretary was the entire staff.

That was hardly enough then. Oops, along comes budget cuts and Attorney Butler was eliminated from OVA.

How Attorney Papillo continued to do such a great job is beyond my comprehension. Oops, along comes another budget cut, and OVA almost becomes extinct.

It took many letters to our Representatives, Senators and a petition by Debbie Florence. She single-handedly brought 5,000 signatures to keep OVA open. She is an unbelievable hardworking survivor.

After being victimized by the court, my family had only Attorney Papillo to turn to. My daughter, Suzanne, who will testify, will go into the heart of that matter. For every violent crime there are countless victims.

The violent criminal is the pebble thrown into a pond. The ripples caused by that pebble are the victims.

This State does little to nothing to assist victims. Many victims are not told about the very few resources available to them.

For the ones who do learn of the few services, the process and the paperwork are overwhelming and can go on for years.

Office of Victim Services allows two years to apply for the benefits available, and believe me, they're not much.

I believe a waiver up to six years can be applied for to the Office of Victim Services if a hardship can be proven.

I believe the time to apply must be longer, especially for crimes against children. We've seen adults, after being assaulted as children, are not eligible for counseling because the time has run out.

Presently, OVA allows ten visits per family for counseling after a murder for violent crime. Hardly enough.

I'm missing a page, wait a minute. Many families won't even begin counseling because they know it's not enough, so they won't start something they can't finish.

Many feel it may be more harmful to begin and hit the wall with a sudden stop that they know is coming. Ten visits for a family of four is about 2.2 visits each.

Many survivors are not available for help, such as extended family, friends, fiancés, etc. OVA, Attorney Papillo's office, must have more funding for the staff enlargement. This State funds our correction institution with billions of dollars and I know because my husband is a Correctional officer.

If victims only had 10% of that type of funding, victims could be served as they deserve. First and foremost, Attorney Papillo is truly dedicated to the constitutional rights for victims.

The murderers and other violent offenders are no longer called criminals or inmates. Connecticut now calls them clients, providing services, medical benefits, unlimited counseling, and much more and all the legal stuff they want too.

While this may be important since we want them to come out rehabilitated, if you can rehabilitate someone who's never habilitated, victims deserve the same and even more since they became victims through no fault of their own.

My son was murdered by a hired hit man and you can read about the tragedy if you want to write the name of the books down, they are Murder, Family Affair by Ernie Dorling, a retired Marine and FBI Agent, Lethal Guardian by M. William Phelps, a true crime writer.

I'm not going to go into the story because it would take 12 hours and a flowchart and I'm not here for that.

I'm here to tell you that this office is vitally important. He wants three, I want 30. Many men and women are murdered and this State will not even pay for their funeral, a very basic right.

Do you realize when prisoners kill themselves in prison, their families get $750,000 to $1.2 million? If I hang myself at home, I get nothing.

Anyway, I'm sorry, I went off track here. While some of these people may have been involved in criminal activity and therefore not eligible for burial benefits as the law now stands, I strongly suggest this must be changed.

The families of most of these murder victims are exceptional families, good families. They go to church.

It's not their fault that their son or daughter may have fallen into the streets and into drugs, but they're left holding the bag and that criminal is dead.

And I have seen so many wonderful families have to pick up a bill they can hardly afford when they can hardly afford to eat, but cannot afford this financial burden. To bury a child is the very worst thing that can happen to any family.

This State should cover this final expense, which would be a great relief to the survivors. Please, if there is an ounce of compassion in your heart, fund Jim Papillo's office, the Office of the Victim Advocate as requested by Attorney Papillo, but add more than he wants because it's not enough.

Not only does he deserve this, but so does every victim and survivor in the State of Connecticut.

Thank you. I know you'll do the right thing. Give OVA even more than he requires for the well being of the citizens of Connecticut. I cannot thank you enough. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy--

REP. MERRILL: --thank you. Next we have Suzanne Clinton.

SUZANNE CLINTON: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my testimony before the Appropriations Committee this evening.

My name is Suzanne Clinton and I serve as President as Survivors of Homicide. Survivors of Homicide is a 501C3 nonprofit organization that exists to provide counseling, support, and advocacy to those who have lost a loved one to homicide.

Tonight I am here to support additional funding for the Office of the Victim Advocate. I can talk from experience. Without this office, victims will be the one who loses. It is impossible for an office to work efficiently and effectively with only two staff members.

My brother was murdered by a hired hit man, Mark Dupree, who was hired by Attorney Hayman Klein. The entire murder plot was organized by Attorney Beth Carpenter. Beth Carpenter was tried, convicted and sentenced in 2002.

This high-profile case still violated my family's victims rights. We were forced to call upon Attorney Papillo.

We were the first case in Connecticut to call upon the OVA for support to gain the right to have representation in the courtroom during the trial.

At the beginning of the trial, Attorney Hugh Keefe, who was Beth Carpenter's defense attorney, and Attorney Kevin Kane, State Prosecutor, agreed to sequester all members of the Clinton family, the victim's family and the Carpenter family, who was the defendant's family.

Both the courtroom victim advocate and Kevin Kane, the prosecutor, were notified that this would be a violation of my and my family's victim Constitutional rights.

The courtroom victim advocate, hired by the Office of Victim Services, refused to do anything at all to protect my rights. Rather he did say that I was so fired up, I needed a fire hose to cool me down.

Kevin Kane was notified of this violation, but did nothing as his focus was merely on the trial. My family missed three days of the trial, which was not right. I know that without the OVA, my family's rights would have been overlooked.

Attorney Papillo did come in, submitted a motion on behalf of my family, and we were allowed back in the courtroom.

As President of Survivors of Homicide, it is not only my case in which I've had to call Attorney Papillo and his staff, but at times, he has had to turn away cases based on the overwhelming caseload he currently faces.

It is not fair to him to put so much pressure or to the victims in Connecticut. Victims in Connecticut deserve much more.

Attorney Papillo helps victims by enacting laws that allow victims to participate in the criminal justice system. The ultimate goal is to be sure that victims are not re-victimized, but without an increase of budget, the Office of Victim Advocate cannot accomplish this.

The Office of Victim Advocate does not have the funds needed to protect victims by passing Legislation while investigating and resolving victims' complaints.

That affects not only homicide survivors, but all victims of crime. Please consider the proposed budget, which would allocate three additional staff, which positions include a Principal Attorney, a Second Complaint Officer, and a Lead Investigator.

Please support the Office of Victim Advocate proposed budget. Give all victims somewhere to turn for help.

Do not allow crime victims to be re-victimized by the criminal justice system by not increasing the funding that is necessary to help Attorney Papillo serve those in need. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Danielle Rea.

DANIELLE REA: Hello, thank you, Senator Harp and Representative Merrill. I am a member of Survivor of Homicide and I am here to speak on behalf of Jim Papillo's office, the Office of Victim Advocate, to increase his staff to three instead of two.

There are so many families out there who need this service that I find it very interesting to find that they can't, that they have 900 calls and how do they even service 900 people, I just don't know.

I just really highly recommend that you appropriate enough money to fund another victim advocate for the office. Thank you very much.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Next, Deb Florence.

DEBBIE FLORENCE: Good evening, Senator Harp, Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriation Committee. My name is Debbie Florence and I am here today on behalf of the Office of the Victim Advocate.

Just a few years ago, the OVA was created by our State lawmakers to oversee agencies and others that provide services to victims of crime.

The OVA serves as a watchdog agency and among other things, helps victims get the attention and respect they are entitled to by the criminal justice system.

Thus far, they have done an outstanding job with the limited resources they have been given.

I was here last year and I am back again now asking that you please consider providing the OVA with a much-needed staff and resources to effectively fulfill the demand of the OVA for the benefit of crime victims in Connecticut.

Every day there are thousands of mistakes being made in and throughout our court systems and other departments providing services to crime victims.

Victims and their families are not being treated fairly and are left frustrated and disheartened by this injustice.

With the proper funding, the OVA would have the ability to increase the awareness that is so desperately needed to help victims of crime understand their rights and the services available to them.

With domestic violence on the rise as never before, the OVA has a unique opportunity to help people more than ever, but Jim's hands are tied to do so without funding to equip his office with the staff and resources they need to do the job.

The OVA has had some tremendous accomplishments. The hundreds of individual victims they have assisted, the significant Legislative changes they have fought for, the investigations regarding systematic failures in the challenge of violating victims' rights, all with the little resources they have been given.

Given the fact that they have started with four people and now have just two, I'm sure they feel overwhelmed. Jim and Merit have been overburdened with phone calls coming in the task to get the job done. Simply put, they need help.

Last year I handed Senator Don Williams a petition that included approximately 1,500 signatures of people from around our State that support the OVA and its vital purpose to help the citizens of Connecticut by providing the resources they need to do the job more effectively.

These signatures were gathered in just under ten days. I believe it is time for our lawmakers to support the office it created and its commitment to crime victims.

I believe increases of resources, subpoena power, and overseeing the court-based advocates is what the OVA needs to do to truly help victims and their families.

The OVA could teach and assist the court-based advocates to really advocate for victims instead of being puppets for the prosecutor's office. They would finally be doing what they should be doing.

I speak from personal experience. My daughter, Jenny, nine months pregnant, was shot to death on New Year's Even 2001. I know firsthand the lengthy process of how the advocates of the court work.

If the OVA acted as an umbrella over the advocates of the court, I believe it would make a tremendous difference to victims and their families. They would be free to really be an advocate in action, not just in work or title.

Jim has the knowledge and experience to help the court-based advocates be more effective and lead them with guidance to better assist victims.

I'm asking you to support the OVA office and its work. I'm asking you to give Jim and the OVA what they need so that the office can be fully equipped to do their job more effectively.

Thank you for considering my testimony and I just wanted to just add, I have since, this was done in July 25, 2002, and this was a very intense investigative report that Jim and his office did on behalf of my daughter and grandson's murder.

But this is the last one that they've been able to do, because at the time, they did have four people and I know that there are cases that really could use this. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much. Next is Beth Profeta.

MARY HAMILTON: Good evening, once again. Beth could not be here, but she has sent a statement along for me to read if that's acceptable?

Okay, Members of the Appropriations Committee, if this is being read to you today it's only because I could not physically be here with you this evening. However, there are a few words I wanted to share.

Connecticut victims desperately rely on having an office dedicated solely to victims. When you become a victim, it becomes necessary to have Jim's office in your life.

We need any and all of Jim's resources, time and extra energy he might have. Some of us need guidance, support and, yes, advocacy. Connecticut victims call Jim because he just might know exactly what do.

By watching the news lately, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Papillo's office is being flooded with calls from victims reaching out for any help his office may offer.

Victim laws have been enacted, but we need Jim to ensure our rights are being upheld. As a veteran survivor of a homicide, I feel compelled to inform you that not enough is being done for us, all of Connecticut's victims.

As our numbers increase, so does the number of assistants Jim's office needs. I'm just asking you to please be fair.

Certain people seem to show more concern for the perpetrators' and inmates' rights, and if that isn't bad enough, it seems that they actually have more right s than we do.

Exactly what do Connecticut's victims get? Ten free counseling sessions and maybe, if you're lucky, compensation for counseling or certain costs related to your crime.

My claim was denied over a year of private counseling because the therapist/MSW did not return the calls made to her by the board. I ask you, can my family ever be properly compensated for having to live the past 20 years in fear?

Someone screwed this case up and the suspects in my mom's murder are allowed to stare me down as they continue to walk our streets.

Since this tragedy, I've trusted no one with my kids, unable to work and I've been plagued with several stress-related health issues. Add this all up and it means my world was shattered in August of 1984.

My husband and I have been unable to provide a home of our very own for our family on just one income, and we are unable to make our family completely safe. We would never be the same. Our American dream has been taken from my family.

We, therefore, need all the advocacy we can get. I only ask that you please put the victim first, for we do continue to suffer. Because of these criminals, our lives will never be the same.

I beg you, please make Jim's office the most effective it can be. All of Connecticut will benefit.

Thank you so much for all of your time. Beth Profeta.

REP. MERRILL: Next, Kimberly Sundquist.

KIMBERLY SUNDQUIST: Good evening, my name is Kimberly Sundquist and I'm a survivor of homicide.

One month prior to my birth, my grandfather married a woman who was the essence of what a grandmother should be, hence my extended family was born.

Last year, my grandmother's son, my Uncle Jerry, was murdered by a 34-year-old man and his 14-year-old stepson in North Carolina.

It was a very emotional time for the family. Even though I was not connected to him by blood, he was still family.

He was the one person in my life who never judged me and I took it particularly hard. I mourned for one year, but then realized I needed to make good come from a bad situation.

In November, I found Survivors of Homicide and joined so that I may have a support system as well as become an anti-violence activist, as well as promote victims' rights.

A month ago, at an SOC meeting, the board indicated they needed fundraising. At that point, my ideas for a walkathon and rally were born, and with authorization from our President, Suzanne Clinton, I became the coordinator for this Hartford event.

Since then, I have been in contact a number of times with Attorney Jim Papillo of the Office of the Victim's Advocate. I've grown to respect this man and the work he does.

Until recently, I did not know of the office for I do not qualify for many of the programs he offers because it was not an immediate family and my uncle was killed out of state.

Jim and his office is 100% behind me, my ideas, and survivors of homicides. He is aiding our efforts for this exciting event. We have his full cooperation for we are the only organization for Survivors of Homicide.

He makes it a point to attend our meetings occasionally and offers support to our members when they are in need of it.

This event is going to be the first of its kind, with speakers of interest and a walkathon to show support for victims' rights.

It will be open to the public and to all Government officials. All plans are tentative at this point, but still we are in the process, with Jim's help, to obtain adequate location for the rally and walkathon around Bushnell Park.

This event will take place on April 16, 2005. I appreciate Jim's support and ask for all to support more funding and staff personnel for the Office of the Victim Advocate.

If this office has more funding and staff, the benefits will trickle down to those in desperate need of his services.

Those left behind to deal with the aftermath of horrific events and those who must deal with the trauma of never-ending court cases. We are often forgotten about, but the Office of the Victims Advocate never forgets or leaves us behind. Thank you.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Carlson.

MRS. BRUCE CARLSON: My husband couldn't be here this evening and I'm going to be the shortest of all. I am not going to reiterate everything that has been said because everyone has said and spoken with a lot of passion and a lot of pain and I am one of those victims.

Our daughter, Elizabeth, was murdered May of 2002 by her ex-boyfriend, who was our veterinarian.

James Papillo and Merit, Survivors of Homicide, were there for us. There's a lot to be done, and the bottom line is he needs a lot of help. So I know that you will dig down deep and you'll find a way to make it happen and that's it.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you. Joe Belliveau.

JOE BELLIVEAU: I've been told that being the last speaker of the evening there is no bell for me.

Well, good evening, Senator Harp, and Representative Merrill, and Members of the Appropriations Committee.

My name is Joe Belliveau and I am an individual who has needed the services of the Victim Advocates Office and I am also a member and treasurer for Survivors of Homicide.

Jim Papillo has been very active and supportive of my son's case. There were many problems with the way the case was investigated and handled.

Jim and his staff have worked long and hard to open communications of all parties involved, so that we may find out what truly happened to my son that tragic night.

I know that I am not alone and that there are many more victims who could use his services. As a demand for his services grows, so does the need for additional personnel for his office. I feel that at the present staff level, he will not be able to accomplish all that is required of his office.

It would bother me to think that others in similar situations such as myself would not be able to obtain the same assistance that has been so helpful to me. I urge you to increase his budget so all victims will be served.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me and I sincerely hope that you will support the OVA proposal.

REP. MERRILL: Thank you very much and thank you for waiting so long. We tried very hard to accommodate everyone and we really appreciate your stories. They're very meaningful, so thank you.

I believe that concludes our Public Hearing. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.]