July 12, 2001

gmh REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.

PRESIDING CHAIRMAN: Representative Lyons

MEMBERS PRESENT:

SENATORS: Sullivan, DeLuca, Crisco,

Cappiello

REPRESENTATIVES: Ward, Currey, O'Neill

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS: -- your district should be configured or what the areas of common interest that you believe represent either your community or yourself or your neighboring communities would be most gratified to hear about.

At this time, I would like to introduce the committee. I am Moira Lyons. I am the Speaker of the House for Connecticut.

To my right is Senator Lou DeLuca, who is the Minority Leader of the Senate.

Next to him is Senator Kevin Sullivan, who is the President Pro Tem of the Senate and sitting next to him is Senator Joe Crisco, who is the Chair of the Appropriations Committee for the Senate.

And to my left, is Melody Currey. Melody Currey is from the House of Representatives. She is one of my deputy speakers and next to her, is Representative Art O'Neill who is also representing the minority party from the House on this committee.

We appreciate all of you being here. As I said, it is very important for us to get your input. We have two more hearings, which will be on Tuesday in Hartford. They will be at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon and then continued at 7:00 o'clock in the evening.

We have many people signed up to speak and because of that, in order to allow everyone to be heard and in order to allow the public to have input from what other folks are saying, we will have a time limit on what you are saying.

We would like to limit that time limit to three minutes. I realize that is brief, but we will take any public input that you have, any presentations you make, any papers that you would like to give us.

In the past, we have not needed to set a time limit, but looking at the long list that we have, we would like to be respectful to other people in the room who would like to be heard.

And with that, I would like to call the first speaker on the list who is Representative Peter Nystrom. Peter.

REP. PETER NYSTROM: Good evening. I'd like to welcome you all to the City of Norwich, and to this wonderfully renovated Council Chamber and I'd like to thank the wonderful turnout that is seated and standing behind me. It's a great turnout and I think it's reflective of the interests and concerns of those of us who live in the 2nd district.

We very much would like to be as we are when this process is over. We would like to be whole. I am here to ask you to keep the 2nd district intact. You must make changes, some population changes, but the second district must remain intact.

We are a district that has very rural character to it. We do not have the larger cities that exist in the State of Connecticut within our borders right now and I think to divide this district would do great harm, not only to the 2nd district, but to the other districts, as well.

I'm sure other people will talk about that, but I would like to raise my concern that I would not like to see the district divided, whether it's Hartford, as well as New Haven, if that's to be considered.

Very often we feel that we are the "other" Connecticut. Well, I don't believe in that. We are one Connecticut, but we are one district, the 2nd district and we are united in our purpose tonight to impress upon you the importance of remaining one district.

So, I would ask you to consider that, consider my brief comments. Again, I would like to thank all of you for attending. It's good to see all of you. I look forward to seeing you in a week, veto session, and I will remain myself to hear others speak, but thank you very much.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments.

Next, we have on the list -- oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Senator - Representative Nystrom, Senator Sullivan has a question for you.

SEN. SULLIVAN: First of all, if you're glad to see us after the long extra innings, then you are a masochist, Peter.

I want to just clarify. You said at one point you understand that because of population changes, there will have to be changes. And then you said keep the district intact.

Can you distinguish those two for me?

REP. PETER NYSTROM: Well, much like a House or Senate district, as numbers have changed and as populations have migrated, clearly the numbers that make up the 2nd district, I believe, have to grow. And in that respect, that's what I'm referring to.

And what that gives you the opportunity is to restore towns that were once in the 2nd district that were taken out. So actually, it's in that light that I'm referring.

SEN. SULLIVAN: So, your comment would be to extend the 2nd district, either -- well, to extend the 2nd district westerly at some series of points, but otherwise, not to make any changes within the 2nd district itself as it now stands?

REP. PETER NYSTROM: That is correct.

SEN. SULLIVAN: Would you have a preference as to where those extensions should be?

REP. PETER NYSTROM: I believe that a number of communities that are along the Connecticut river valley on the other side of the river, at one time, were in the 2nd district. If there was a preference, it probably would be towards that purpose.

SEN. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir.

Deborah DeCristoforo, to be followed by Wayne Fraser.

DEBORAH DeCRISTOFORO: Good evening. My name is Deborah DeCristoforo. I'm representing the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut.

I'd like to read aloud a position paper that we put together, all of the eastern Connecticut Chambers of Commerce got together several months ago.

The Consortium of Eastern Connecticut Chambers of Commerce, representing over 5,600 employers, calls upon the region's state legislators to strongly support the preservation of Connecticut's 2nd Congressional District, expanding its boundaries only as necessary to accommodate the congressional redistricting plan.

The unique challenges facing small towns and cities in addressing issues such as job creation, economic development, education, health care, transportation, and social service delivery are often very difficult from the State's urban centers.

The communities of Eastern Connecticut need an advocate who can concisely and unequivocally represent our concerns It is vitally important that the 2nd Congressional District continue to serve the needs of Eastern Connecticut.

I have here a combined list of 64 names of our Board of Directors and signed position statements from several of our members.

REP. LYONS: Thank you. If you would like that into the staff, I'm sure they would be happy to receive it.

Thank you.

Wayne Fraser to be followed by Mark Leonard.

WAYNE FRASER: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm Wayne Fraser, First Selectman of East Lyme and I'm also the Chairman of the Southeastern Council of Governments.

I would like to just read a statement from the Council of Governments.

The Southeastern Council of Governments, representing 20 municipalities of southeastern Connecticut, wishes to go on record in support of the preservation of the Connecticut 2nd Congressional District.

The boundaries of this district should only be adjusted as needed to accommodate the statewide congressional redistricting plan. The current district's boundaries have served this region well over the years. The municipalities located at the eastern side of the State have much in common and are working to address many of the same issues and problems.

The challenges faced by the State's largest urban centers are very different from those that we see here in eastern Connecticut.

We believe that it is extremely important to the future of our region and all of eastern Connecticut in that the 2nd Congressional District remains intact.

We respectfully urge that the Reapportionment Committee and the members of the General Assembly consider the unique nature of this area of our State in determining the future of the five congressional districts.

The 20 chief elected officials of the towns in southeastern Connecticut would be more than willing to meet with you and to discuss this issue in more detail and at any time, our Council of Governments would be happy to call a meeting and do whatever is necessary.

We also feel that the expansion of the district, whatever boundaries have to be moved, should be done so that the representation is very similar in nature as to the rural areas and to the expansion, whether it's along the I-95 border or the Connecticut River border, so that we have the commonality of many of the same issues that we're dealing with in here, as we do support each other and we're a very close knit group in southeastern Connecticut.

And we thank you for coming here today and allowing us to speak.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much.

Mark Leonard to be followed by Senator Peters.

MARK LEONARD: I have a statement to read and I also have two letters from persons who couldn't be here this evening.

Good evening, members of the Reapportionment Committee. Welcome to Norwich. My name is Mark Leonard, also representing the newly formed Association of Chambers of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut.

The Board of Directors of our chambers and its membership, in excess of 1,300 strong, have expressed a deep concern over the possible restructuring and/or elimination of the 2nd Congressional District.

The elimination of our district, while having it absorbed into other districts, could leave us with the most difficult position and with very little representation and the opportunity to address major issues and concerns that are unique to eastern Connecticut.

We stand united with the other chambers in our district and we urge you all to preserve the integrity of the 2nd district as best you can.

We wish you well in your deliberations.

I have a letter from Mr. William Spellman, Plant Manager of Phelps Dodge Copper Plant in Norwich, Connecticut.

"Dear Reapportionment Committee. Phelps Dodge is strongly opposed to the elimination of the 2nd district. We believe that the interests of the eastern Connecticut community can best be served by letting the district continue to stand alone and not by folding it into other districts."

I also have a statement from Mr. Harry Rousher from the Association of Chambers of Commerce.

"I'm here to oppose any potential change to the 2nd Congressional District unless it is to add additional numbers in order to adjust the district.

We are also a member of the Consortium of Chambers representing eastern Connecticut, which includes the Chambers of Commerce of Middlesex County, Willimantic, the northeast section of Connecticut, Plainfield, Mystic, and Tolland County.

This consortium of chambers represents an excess of 5,600 employers. The unique characteristics and challenges facing our region, which is comprised of small towns and cities, are much different than the urban centers of Connecticut, such as New Haven, Hartford, etcetera.

The issues of transportation, economic development, health care, social service, education, and a host of other issues need to be addressed. This region, with its rural characteristics, has much different needs."

We thank you for this opportunity and we hope you will consider everything during your deliberations.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much.

Senator Peters to be followed by Shawn McNally. Prior to Senator Peters speaking, I would like to acknowledge some of the other legislators that have also joined us.

Representative Nancy DeMarinis, Representative Jamie Spallone, Representative Patrick Flaherty, Representative Linda Orange, Representative Andrea Stillman, Representative Gary Orefice, Representative Jack Malone, Representative Wade Hyslop, Senator Eileen Daily, and Senator Edith Prague.

It's very wonderful. I welcome you. You have -- and Senator Cook is here also. I'm sorry, I didn't see you, but it's Senator Cook. I'm sorry, I didn't' see you come in.

And I think you offer a very good representation for your district that so many legislators are here and interested in this process.

Senator Peters.

SEN. MELODIE PETERS: Thank you, Madam Chairman and welcome to eastern Connecticut. Welcome to Senator DeLuca, Senator Sullivan and the rest of the panel.

We are different in eastern Connecticut. We've always been treated rather differently, either in the State House or throughout the State because we have very different characteristics about eastern Connecticut that I know my colleagues have appreciated over the years and we've certainly supported -- or are appreciative of the support you've given us as leaders in the General Assembly.

I've been in this business going into my 10th year. Prior to that, about 12, 14 years ago, this district when through overwhelming changes with the defense industry leaving, and we had to, as an eastern part of the State, pull ourselves up by our boot straps, quite frankly, and meet in coalitions. We developed the Economic Development Coalition, of which the tourism industry and coalition spun out.

We were one of the first in the State to deal with the problems with medical insurance companies just picking up and walking away and leaving people uninsured.

We've dealt with a number of issues from closing the Sub Base or threats of closing the Sub Base to threats of closing down Electric Boat, dealing with the gaming issues that come along with the expansion of gambling in our State, and we have done this as a group of people committed to the eastern region.

I dare say, that there are not other parts of this State that can appreciate those issues, those collective issues, and that have the kind of relationships that have been built over the years from town-to-town throughout eastern Connecticut.

I don't envy your position in having to make this decision. I know the numbers dictate that some changes are going to have to be made and I would associate myself with the comments of other speakers tonight in saying that when you're looking at the 2nd district, please don't take away -- I know you may have to add, but please add to the character in recognizing the issues that we have been dealing with for over a decade and will continue to deal with, with the support of this State.

I thank you for the time you're putting into this and good luck with your deliberations.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much.

Shawn McNally to be followed by Shawn Fisher.

SHAWN MCNALLY: Honorable committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening.

My name is Shawn McNally. I'm a resident of Deep River. I speak to you tonight as a lifelong resident of eastern Connecticut. I'm a former 2nd District Congressional staff person and a former elected official, having the honor of representing the citizens of Norwich and Sprague.

Tonight, I wish to direct my comments to congressional redistricting. I understand and appreciate the difficult task before you as you see to craft five congressional districts from six, but I must say, with all due respect, that any redistricting plan that breaks the current 2nd Congressional District would be drastic and wrong. It would divide numerous and important communities of interest in eastern Connecticut.

Moreover, because the 2nd District breakup would also drastically change the nature of the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts, based in Hartford and New Haven, I believe the plan would dilute the strength of the African American vote significantly, significantly enough to warrant a court challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes to elaborate or a minute to elaborate since I only have three minutes.

One of the primary communities of interest in eastern Connecticut is the county structure. Counties form the basis for all kinds of professional, social, and support organizations and it - the district is made up, primarily, by Middlesex, New London, Tolland, and Windham Counties. Respecting the importance of the county structure to the fabric of eastern Connecticut, I would respectfully ask the committee to consider making Middlesex and Tolland Counties whole in the redistricting plan, that includes the 2nd district, that would bring in Clinton, Killingworth, Portland, and Somers into the 2nd District. Parts of Clinton, Portland and Somers have been part of the 2nd District for many years, prior to the 1990 reapportionment.

There are important things of interest I wish to touch on. First, business and commerce. You heard comments from the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut. You'll hear other business people tonight. This is an important community of interest that I'd ask you take note of.

For the religious issues, there's a shared community of interest. For example, there's a Jewish Federation of Eastern Connecticut and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich, made up of 65 parishes which covers almost all of the 2nd District, along with Fisher's Island, New York.

I would argue, these communities of interest are important in that they allow like minded citizens to organize and clearly represent their voice before elected officials.

To divide these communities would be to diminish their voice. And in diminishing the voice of eastern Connecticut's citizens, I believe we would also be diminishing the voice of Connecticut's minority voters, particularly greater Hartford's African American community.

I believe it would be very difficult for this committee to blend two districts with relatively high minority populations into a district with relatively high minority populations into a district with a relatively low minority population without effectively diluting the minority vote. And in doing so, the plan would be subject to challenge under the Voting Rights Act.

Protecting the voice of Connecticut's African American Latino voters should alone be enough to block any change in the 2nd District.

In conclusion, I would argue the 2nd District represents a strong and varied collection of community interests that should be preserved. To do otherwise, would not only diminish their voice, but would also harm other important voting constituencies, namely Connecticut's minority voters.

Thank you very much for your time.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, Shawn.

Shawn Fisher to be followed by Ernie Wetzel. I would also like to acknowledge that Representative Bob Ward, who is the Minority Leader of the House, has also joined us and I believe in the room with us also, is Representative Diana Urban.

Shawn. And I'm sorry. Senator Cappiello, also representing the minority from the Senate, has also joined us on the committee.

SHAWN FISHER: Good evening. My name is Shawn Fisher. And first, let me thank you for the opportunity for all of us to come together and let you know how we feel.

I think it's clear from the attendance in this room, that the 2nd District feels very strongly about this issue and you'll find out about how they feel when you hear from them individually.

But, some of the people, actually many of the people in this room know that I'm a candidate for the United States Congress here in the 2nd District, but I am not here in that capacity right now. I stand here as a citizen of the 2nd District.

And I am here to let you know that I've had the opportunity and the privilege to go to all the towns in the 2nd District to talk with the State Representatives, the State Senators, the First Selectmen, the members of town committees of both parties, people on Main Street, people at the shopping centers, and I can tell you that I am not here to speak about the details of the 2nd District. There are people who will be far more eloquent than myself about the importance of the historical continuity and the similar cultural aspects that the towns in the 2nd District share.

I'm here to report to you simply on what I've heard because as I've gone through the 2nd District, the one question -- I've heard many questions as everyone here knows, whose run as an elected representative, you get many questions. But the one question I was asked by absolutely every individual, without exception, was what's going to happen to the 2nd District? Are we going to lose our representation? And I want you to remember that one phrase because I think that it's important and it expresses a sentiment about how many people feel.

The 2nd District is different. Here in eastern Connecticut, we have kind of a fierce Connecticut Yankee individualism and independence that we feel is very important about all of this. But there's a difference between wanting to be independent and not wanting to be ignored.

And one of the previous speakers mentioned about the sense of this "other" Connecticut and I think that sentiment is very genuine. As I went around to people, one of the concerns was that they did feel, especially in issues of taxation and funding, that the 2nd District or eastern Connecticut, whether that impression is correct or not, often gets the short shrift.

And what I would like to have this board remember is simply two things. That when I talked to people, it was virtually unanimous in the sentiment that they wanted to retain the 2nd District in largely, it's current form.

I appreciate the fact that it does need to change, that it needs to be changed in some form, but I implore you to maintain the 2nd District in largely its current form as much as you can because the people here are virtually unanimous in their support of maintaining the current form.

The second thing that I'd like you to remember and think about is that there is this underlying feeling in eastern Connecticut that we are kind of the step-child and that removing the Congressional representation that we have, will leave many people feeling not that they have new representation, but that they've lost their representation.

The phrase I kept hearing was, are we going to lose our representation? And to kind of badly borrow from an old phrase that helped found our country, when you combine the sense that we haven't gotten our fair share of funding or taxation, this impression of whether we have or have not, combined with the lack of representation that we may lose, at least the impression is that the 2nd District will be left with taxation without congressional representation.

Thank you very much.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir.

Ernie Wetzel, to be followed by Michael -- I'm not sure if I'm saying it right - Paoe - P-A-O-E, I believe is the spelling.

ERNIE WETZEL: Good evening. My name is Ernie Wetzel. I'm the First Selectman of the Town of Woodstock. I'm here tonight with my fellow First Selectman from the Northeast Council of Governments and we have a statement we would like to have read to you by Brian Lynch from the Town of Thompson. Brian.

BRIAN LYNCH: Good evening, honorable members of the Reapportionment Committee. My name is Brian Lynch. I'm the First Selectman of the Town of Thompson.

I'm here tonight to present the position of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments. Joining me are Dale Clark, First Selection Town of Sterling; Ernie Wetzel, First Selectman Town of Woodstock; Dave Patenaude, First Selectman Town of Pomfret; Richard Woodward, First Selectman Town of Eastford; and Neil A. Dupont, First Selectman of Canterbury.

We welcome you to eastern Connecticut and thank you for bringing your committee to this region to hear directly from the people of eastern Connecticut.

The Northeastern Council of Governments adopted the following position regarding redistricting on July 6, 2001. The Northeaster Connecticut Council of Governments strongly and without condition, supports the continuation of the fundamental makeup of the current 2nd Congressional District configuration.

The Northeastern Council of Governments is made up of ten towns that form the northeastern corner of Connecticut, Brooklyn, Canterbury, Eastford, Killingly, Plainfield, Pomfret, Putnam, Sterling, Thompson, and Woodstock.

The respective chief elected officials represent our member towns. Redistricting is very important to our region. This region is often referred as the "quiet corner", but more often than not, simply referred to as the "forgotten corner".

It is critical to our well being that we have congressional representation that has an understanding of our issues, needs, and history. It is our determination that we are best served by having eastern Connecticut remain united under one congressional district.

The media and those with purely partisan motivation continue to exploit the June 28, 2001 action by the Council of Governments. The Northeastern Council of Governments, under agenda item entitled, "Congressional District Discussion - What is in our Best Interest", took a position that was interpreted to mean that the Northeastern Council of Governments no longer favored the 2nd Congressional district configuration. This interpretation by the media was and is incorrect.

Our June 28th action was, in no way, motivated by party politics or the support or lack of support for individuals seeking congressional office. The media assertions that this action was political or a statement of dissatisfaction with Congressman Simmons is insulting and absolutely wrong.

Redistricting is not and should not be used as a referendum on performance, nor should it be a means of manipulation to further the particular interest on one particular party.

What did occur in eastern Connecticut between June 28th and July 6th and what it continues to simmer is an enormous response by organizations and every day citizens. They are adamant that we must remain the 2nd Congressional District in its basic format.

Few issues have generated this level and unity of response. It was not a partisan response, it was an eastern Connecticut response. We, the representatives of the ten towns of the northeastern corner of the 2nd District, have heard the collective outcry of our constituents and we fully support their views.

The members of the Northeastern Council of Governments realize that your committee's efforts will be second guessed as you work to reconfigure Connecticut into five voting districts. Yours is not an enviable task.

We only ask and are confident that you act to determine what is in the best interest of the community of Connecticut. In the end, that will be the best result.

Thank you for your consideration.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments.

Sir, excuse me, sir. Before you leave, there's a question. If we may, a question from the committee. Senator Sullivan had a question for you, sir.

SEN. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Only because I too have learned not always to understand precisely from reading a newspaper what may or may not have happened, I am, nonetheless, curious to know how you would describe the purpose of the original vote that was taken and the language of the original vote that was taken.

BRIAN LYNCH: I think there was confusion, sir, because we had talked a number of times, just purely discussion. I was not at the meeting that day. Unfortunately, hard to believe, the only one I think I missed since I've been elected. Obligations to family was, unfortunately, on the top of the agenda.

I can't speak for what happened that day, but I know that we had talked several times and we were adamant that we wanted to the 2nd Congressional District stay the same. What transpired that day, I'm not sure how that happened. I think it was more just a - a vote was basically taken to say let's talk about this, let's bring people in and bring in Congressman Simmons, bring in our State Senators, Representatives to talk about what was going on. I think that was more the issue of the vote, let's vote to have discussions in more depth.

SEN. SULLIVAN: What was - just help me to understand. What was the actual resolution or item that was taken up?

BRIAN LYNCH: I wasn't there. I could ask our Chairman of The Council of Governments.

DALE CLARKE: Senator Sullivan, Dale Clark, Chairman of the Council of Governments.

The action was actually a discussion item that was on the agenda for a special meeting. And in the discussion, it was raised to a vote, it was moved to a question and seconded and voted upon.

It was felt that after that meeting, that it was not a proper vote and it was to be revisited.

SEN. SULLIVAN: What was the item?

DALE CLARKE: The item of-- the redistricting discussion we were on was redistricting and the taking a look at different areas and we felt that if it had to change, we took a look at the possibilities of different changes.

SEN. SULLIVAN: Would it be possible, just out of curiosity again, because I don't like to rely on what I read in the newspapers, if you could provide us with a copy of the first item voted, as well as the second item voted?

DALE CLARKE: Yes, we can.

SEN. SULLIVAN: I would appreciate it.

SEN. DELUCA: Madam Chairman, before they go.

REP. LYONS: Senator.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Before you go, we had a hearing last night in Bridgeport and a gentleman spoke about both votes. And said the second was under political pressure. I would like to ask you the question, was there any political pressure brought to bear to make this change that you presented to us this evening?

DALE CLARKE: I would say no pressure came from the members of the Council.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you very much.

REP. LYONS: Representative Ward.

REP. WARD: Just as a follow-up to make it clear. Is it unanimous amongst the members of your Council of Governments that regardless of what happened on June 28th or 29th, that as of July 6th and until this point, you believe the 2nd should remain essentially intact? Obviously, there would have to be some changes to comply with six going to five, but is that the unanimous position among the Council of Governments at this point?

DALE CLARKE: The vote was nine to one abstention, yes.

REP. WARD: Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you're helping us out.

DALE CLARKE: Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Michael Paoe, if I'm saying that correctly, to be followed by Virginia Raymond.

MICHAEL PACE: Good evening. It's Michael Pace.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir.

MICHAEL PACE: Thank you. I'm First Selectman, Town of Old Saybrook.

The purpose of coming here tonight is, obviously, to speak to you about the 2nd District and while you go into deliberations as to how you would break six into five.

As you heard tonight, I believe, as well as many others, that the 2nd District, as it now is, can and should be expanded to include the lower Connecticut valley towns of Middlesex County, together along with the towns along the coastline. We share an economic interest, a social interest, which translates into a political interest and the purpose of having representation down in Washington is to see that the residents of this state, fairly and equitably do have representation for their needs, for the way their life style is, the equality of life and also, the environmental issues that will be and are facing eastern Connecticut.

The State, in its wisdom, and I say that respectfully, is putting together transportation districts to be reviewed to see how we get smart growth and the 2nd District, along with Old Saybrook, shares the commonality of the Route 95 corridor, as well as the Route 9 corridor.

We share a common interest in the lower valley of the protection of the Connecticut River. Old Saybrook, being at the mouth of the Sound, has a particular responsibility in that area.

We believe, the Town of Old Saybrook and I believe the towns that are currently in our district, believe that you should really consider, if you will, the diagram of the (inaudible) diagram of coming in and including back those areas that were once part of the 2nd District and bring them back in and making this 2nd District more representative of the needs of the social interests, the economic interests and the environmental interests of the people of this end of the State and not divide it up for other purposes, which would be purely political.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much, sir.

Tim Griswold to be followed by Senator Cathy Cook.

VIRGINIA RAYMOND: (inaudible-not speaking into a microphone.)

REP. LYONS: Oh, I apologize, you're absolutely right. Got to watch me.

VIRGINIA RAYMOND: I got here early to sign up early.

Thank you so much for coming to eastern Connecticut and giving us the opportunity to speak with you this evening.

I have written testimony and it is not my intention to read it completely and I'll just submit it to your clerk.

But to summarize my primary point in this and I think what people collectively are here this evening to impress upon you, is that it had been suggested a couple of times in various articles about this whole issue, that there could be a possibility that the 2nd Congressional District be split in half, east to west, taking the northern part of the district and connecting to what is now the 1st Congressional District and then taking the southern part of the 2nd Congressional District and joining it with the 3rd, primarily, the New Haven district.

And I just want to make it clear because what I think we are here, pretty much unanimously, this evening to oppose is that kind of idea. We understand we're going to have to change, the population has changed, and that we may well have to grow, but we hope that growth is taken from a northerly to southerly route along the Connecticut River or along the shoreline.

Attached to my written testimony is a map and I would just respectfully suggest that as a starting point, we use the committee in looking at redistricting is to simply go back to what was done in April of 1964 during this special session when you created the 6th Congressional District, when we went from five to six and simply, as a starting point, reverse yourself. Go back to the five districts, as your starting point, and this is that map, and simply plug in your populations for each of the towns and then just move towns along the borders, as they existed back in 1964.

So, that would be my suggestion to you because I think you're probably looking for ways you might approach this problem rather than just us standing here this evening saying don't change us, but we know we're going to have to change and this would be my suggestion as how we go about doing that.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Virginia, I'm sorry. Senator Sullivan has a question for you. Thank you.

SEN. SULLIVAN: I think I got a look at the map. If you could just hold it up one more time.

VIRGINIA RAYMOND: You may have a copy, if you would want.

SEN. SULLIVAN: Would you suppose that if you lived in the current 5th Congressional District, you might be concerned about having that district divided into, as this proposal does? Is there a difference between dividing the 2nd and dividing the 5th?

VIRGINIA RAYMOND: I suppose from their perspective, no. Other than the fact that I think, with the exception of just the northern part of the 5th Congressional District, you do have a more urban area. You do have a more populous area, I think their shoreline communities, primarily.

I suspect that they're going to have strong sentiment, as well, because in the northern part of the district they do have some rural communities, as well.

I guess I'm looking at this more from a perspective of it essentially puts us back to where we were as far back as 1837 when we first came up with districts. I mean, prior to that, we had all congressman at-large for that, but then we devised the district system in 1837 and essentially this is how the State has been for 164 years until the change took place in 1964.

So, I think, essentially, this really has more tradition to it than any other thing that we could possibly do.

SEN. SULLIVAN: I don't ask the question to diminish the advocacy here or to even suggest that that's an alternative, only to point out that as we have discovered going around the State already, --

VIRGINIA RAYMOND: Oh, I'm sure.

SEN. SULLIVAN: -- the strength of feeling on the unity and consistency of the existing congressional districts is consistent throughout Connecticut.

VIRGINIA RAYMOND: I'm sure.

SEN. SULLIVAN: The only problem is five is a little different than six.

VIRGINIA RAYMOND: I think the one -- the district that would be most pleased in this configuration, would be probably be the 3rd. The only single change that would probably be made is just taking Milford out.

SEN. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much.

Tim Griswold, please sir. And then as I said, Senator Cook and then Jim O'Boyle.

TIM GRISWOLD: Good day. I'm Tim Griswold, First Selectman of Old Lyme, at the mouth of the Connecticut River and we bring you tidings.

Old Lyme is a small town, 7,500 people and we have a long distinguished history, as does the district. We have a lot in common with other small towns and I would like to make a comment that we participate in the lower Connecticut Valley Selectmen's Association, which is a nine-town group and also, the Lower Connecticut Valley Council of Elected Officials, which is a 17-town group and that reaches up the Connecticut River on both sides, many of which, are not in the 2nd.

As to the point of adding towns to our area, I think we have a lot in common now with these towns and I think it would make great sense to incorporate those into our district.

The 2nd District, as has been earlier stated, has come through a lot of tremulous times. I remember when we had a bond issue a few years ago, we didn't get the highest rating we could because of the state of the 2nd Congressional District and we all put our shoulders to the wheel and we corrected that situation and I think right now, with Pfizer and other things going on in the district, we have a very vibrant district and we're very proud of it.

And to divide it up at this point, would be a travesty after all of this hard work.

I really think that we have a unique bond within the district and I think that we do not share the values and the problems of the more urban areas and I beseech you to consider that as we continue this long 164 year tradition.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir, for your comments.

Senator Cook to be followed by Jim O'Boyle.

SEN. CATHY COOK: Good evening, friends and colleagues. Welcome to eastern Connecticut. I will not take much time because I have different opportunities to be able to talk with you personally, but I will tell you that the 2nd Congressional District is unique. We are farmers and we are fishermen, and we are hosts to Connecticut.

Sixty-six to seventy percent of the people from outside our state who come to visit Connecticut, come to the 2nd Congressional District. They come to Mystic and they come to the northeast corner and they come to our history and our gaming, all of the tourists and guests. We are the host to this state. And therefore, we share an infinity about what those questions mean and what it means to live in a tourist community and what it means to try to support our economy through that kind of service base.

We are not urban. We do have some communities that are stressed with some of the pressures of urbanism, but we certainly provide a collective support and assistance across all of our towns to help our more concentrated populated areas, as Norwich, New London, and Middletown and others.

But I think that we need to remember that eastern Connecticut serves our state in a very important way.

One of the things that Senator Peters discussed with you was the threat that we had as a state to the concept of losing the submarine base and having it closed. That would have been a tremendous blow to the State's economy, not just to eastern Connecticut's economy.

With the concurrent threat of losing Electric Boat, of not having sea going submarines built, we were going to lose a tremendous amount of contracting that was a very important part of the State's economy.

New London County, twelve years ago, was the most defense dependent county in the country. We had over $9,500 per person in defense contracts in this State in that one county.

The next most defense dependent county was Dallas/Fort Worth when they were building the accelerator a $2,500 per person in the county.

So, you can see that the impact on the State's economy was the impact on eastern Connecticut with the treat of losing both the sub base, Underwater Sound Lab and the Sea Wolf, and perhaps, Electric Boat.

That crisis brought us together in a way that I don't think any other region of the State has ever come together to advocate for our families and for our State's economy.

I do not wish our state to lose that very important congressional vote in Washington that could be jeopardized by diluting that important aspect of what is represented by Connecticut's economy in the 2nd Congressional District.

The people and the voters of this district worked very hard to make sure that its congressman sits on the committees that are important to represent the people of this district. And indeed, we have a congressman who sits on very important committees, making very important votes. And Representative Larson and Representative Maloney also sit on the Arms Services Committee, but three votes in Congress are much more important than two when it comes to making sure that Connecticut gets the kind of defense contracting that we can support our economy with and that are part of the genius of Connecticut that we have established, particularly in eastern Connecticut.

So for all the other reasons, because we care about the land, because we care about the sea, because we are host to the State, those are important.

But please consider, also, the impact on Connecticut's economy if we lose that particular congressional vote when it comes to some of the important matters for Connecticut's economy that are decided in Washington.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much.

James O'Boyle, to be followed by Representative Spallone.

JAMES O'BOYLE: Good evening. My name is Jim O'Boyle and I'm the Legislative Committee Chairman of the Mystic Chamber of Commerce. I have a statement I would like to read and I have copies available for the committee.

The Mystic Chamber of Commerce is a non-partisan community organization representing over 500 businesses in southeastern Connecticut. Our Board of Directors, on behalf of those members, strongly urges our legislators to support a congressional redistricting plan that will preserve the boundaries of Connecticut's 2nd Congressional District.

The concerns and challenges of southeastern Connecticut are far different than those of all other Connecticut congressional districts which include larger cities. The economy of the 2nd Congressional District is particularly dependent on tourism and gaming and unlike other Connecticut towns, it suffers from the extreme labor shortage with an unemployment rate that is lower than the State's and national average.

It faces the challenge of attracting new people here and diversifying the economic base. The 2nd Congressional District is distinctly vulnerable and vastly unlike Connecticut's growing urban centers. The district needs to maintain a balance within the economy with local and statewide transportation concerns and diversification of our resources and industries.

It also needs particular attention paid to environmental issues, as it increasingly becomes internationally known as a marine science industry leader.

It needs an advocate who can unequivocally understand its needs and represent its concerns.

The Mystic Chamber of Commerce hopes you will wisely keep the 2nd Congressional District intact.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir.

Representative Spallone, to be followed by Wini Olson.

REP. JAMES SPALLONE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good evening, members of the Reapportionment Committee. It's good to see you all here tonight. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the reapportionment plan for the State of Connecticut. I appreciate it.

As you know, my name is James Spallone. I represent the 36th District in the State House of Representatives. That includes Deep River, Essex, Chester, Lyme, and Old Saybrook. All of those towns are in the 2nd Congressional District. And while we are from the western part of the district, we certainly feel very much a part of the 2nd Congressional District. And in fact, Chester Boyles of Essex, who lived about a mile from where I do now, represented the 2nd District before joining the Kennedy administration.

I did submit written testimony to the committee and rather that read that and repeat it now, I will simply expand on a small portion of it, which is addressed to the issue of politics and campaigns within the district, briefly.

But first I would want to say that I want to add my voice to the chorus of those voices asking you to preserve the district as intact as possible.

When somebody runs for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District, by necessity, they must seek support in all of the towns. It's hard work for the candidates, certainly, but good for the voters and its grass roots campaigns are absolutely required here in this part of the State.

They can't rely on support from a party organization in one big city or its surrounding suburbs to get the nomination or to win the election. They have to visit 54 diverse towns and cities to gain support.

This makes, I believe, for a good government, for health democracy, and for good representation for a collection of generally small towns and cities whose voice can be heard collectively despite their size.

For these reasons, and for those in my written testimony, I urge, as I said before, I urge the committee to try and keep the district as intact as possible when making your difficult choices this summer and fall.

Thank you again for your time. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. Otherwise, I'll rest in that testimony

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir, for your comments.

Wini Olson, to be followed by Dave Patenaude.

WINI OLSON: Unless they're represented jointly, small towns are very, very easy to ignore.

The 54 towns of eastern Connecticut, represented in the 2nd District, are almost one-third of the towns and cities of the State. Geographically, it's almost that size. And yet, where there are six districts, and eight members of this committee, unfortunately there is no representative of those particular towns on the committee that is to decide how the State is to be realigned.

We're all being very partisan in saying the 2nd Congressional District is important. It should be augmented rather than dissected. We hope that you're all broad minded enough not to be as partisan as we are and to look to your neighbors and realize that we're so tiny that we have to be united.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much.

Dave Patenaude.

DAVE PATENAUDE: Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, good evening. My name is Dave Patenaude. I'm First Selectman of the Town of Pomfret, standing with Representative Jeff Davis, who is also the Chairman of the Pomfret Democratic Town Committee. I'd like to read a letter signed by Jeff, as well as by the acting chairperson of the Pomfret Republican Town Committee, Kate MacKenzie.

"Dear Committee Members: The Pomfret Democratic and Republican Town Committees are united in our concern over the possible dismemberment of the 2nd Congressional District. We are writing this letter to clearly state our opposition to any plan, which would divide a district, which more than other in Connecticut, represents a geographic area with a unique identity.

By joining together and writing this letter, we are emphasizing the non-partisan nature of our concerns. Regardless of the party affiliation of the incumbent Congressman, we feel that the maintenance of the 2nd Congressional District is vitally important.

We respectfully suggest that the Reapportionment Committee seek other options to resolve its constitutional mandate. There can be little question that the common needs of the towns of the 2nd District are significantly different than those of Hartford and New Haven. Including our town in those districts would create a situation in which rural and urban populations would necessarily would be competing for representation.

The different and equally valid needs of each area would suffer for lack of a cohesive voice. We feel that a host of issues, including land preservation, conservation, economic development, taxation, transportation, social services, and Indian tribal issues, are eastern Connecticut issues requiring eastern Connecticut representation in Congress.

We understand that both Councils of Government, as well as both Chambers of Commerce in the district, as well as the local newspapers, have taken public positions in support of the preservation of the 2nd District.

We trust that you will listen carefully to all our voices."

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much. Nicholas Mullane to be followed by Neil Dupont.

NICHOLAS MULLANE: Good evening.

REP. LYONS: Alright, thank you. Please proceed, sir.

NICHOLAS MULLANE: Good evening. My name is Nicholas Mullane. I'm the First Selectman of the Town of North Stonington.

Thank you for holding this hearing. I want to thank Norwich for hosting it. I'm going to speak for a couple of towns tonight.

Bob Cogdon, the First Selectman of Preston, could not attend because he had a public hearing.

I would like to express my opposition to changes of the Democratic character of the 2nd Congressional District. The 2nd District covers a large area consisting mostly of rural communities. It is important to keep this general makeup so as to not dilute the voice of the rural constituency.

Wes Johnson, the Mayor of Ledyard, the could not make it also.

The reality is that the many small towns in the district share some of the problems, as even do the small cities that are contained within it also.

The district of small urban, suburban and rural areas will not benefit by being joined with Hartford or New Haven. In fact, the Congressmen of both those districts, have been quoted in the newspaper as not being interested with having our part of the State added to their districts.

As a member of the South Eastern Connecticut Region, I see no benefit by being part of New Haven.

Again, please leave the 2nd District intact. Thank you for this opportunity.

I'd also like to speak on my own behalf and just reiterate their words. I'd like to say that I'm sorry that we're here tonight because we're going to lose a Congressman. We're going to lose one of our voices. The amount of work for Connecticut is not going to go away. Connecticut is a wonderful place to live and to work. We all have the job to get the population, one, to stay to here, and two, get others to move back in.

That's the town and the state job. We probably have work for two or three more congressmen. And we're going to lose the voice, which is a problem.

You're hearing everybody talking about the problem. Let me try and give you a solution.

I would recommend that you go to every one of the towns on the western side of the border of the 2nd District. Interview them individually, see if they wouldn't feel more compatible in being with the 2nd District. You may get a solution for this end of the State.

There maybe some volunteers, people that will feel that they are more common to the 2nd District. I don't envy your job and I don't like losing a congressman.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak and I hope you keep the 2nd District together.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir.

Richard Abele, to be followed by Norman Primus and then Roger Adams.

RICHARD ABELE: Good evening. My name is Richard Abele, the City Council President and chief elected official of the City of Norwich.

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the Reapportionment Committee, and all state legislators, State Representatives, local officials, I want to welcome you to the City of Norwich tonight and tell you that I'm quite impressed with the turnout and simply to read a letter that I already sent to the Reapportionment Committee, but I would like to just read it for the record and make a couple of brief comments.

I will skip the first line, but, "It is my hope that as your committee engages in the process of redistricting, you will leave the integrity of the 2nd District intact.

As you are no doubt aware, since the turn of the century, the 2nd District has been almost the same size and shape. It has historically run along the Massachusetts and Rhode Island borders and along Long Island Sound.

Eastern Connecticut has its own unique character, largely rural with small communities. We do not have any cities the size of Hartford or New Haven. Our district will be around longer than any individual elected official.

It is my sincere hope that the redistricting process will take into account the character of eastern Connecticut.

I urge you and your colleagues to redraw the lines without any consideration to any member of the Connecticut congressional delegation and without regard to their political affiliation or seniority.