July 17, 2001

pat REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE 2:00 p.m.

PRESIDING CHAIRMEN: Speaker Lyons

Senator DeLuca

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

SENATORS: Crisco, Cappiello

REPRESENTATIVES: Ward, Currey, O'Neill

SENATOR DELUCA: Good afternoon and welcome to one of the last public hearings for the Reapportionment Committee. I'm happy to have you all here this afternoon and with me so far on the Committee today are Senator David Cappiello, Senator Joseph Crisco, Republican House Leader, Bob Ward, Representative Melodie Currey and Representative Art O'Neill. We're missing a couple of our members but I'm sure they'll be along as soon as they have a moment to get here. I'm sure they're tied up.

We will not be imposing any time limits on speakers but we ask you to be courteous, knowing that there are others behind you and keep your remarks as brief and to the point. We appreciate you taking the time to come here today. We will stay here as long as we can this afternoon and then we have another hearing this evening, the last of five, six, which would be a 7:00 p.m. this evening.

So with that, I will call our first person who is Representative Pam Sawyer.

REPRESENTATIVE SAWYER: Good afternoon. My name is Representative Pam Sawyer and I'm a House member representing the Towns of Bolton, Andover, Hebron, Marlborough and part of Vernon.

Everyone loves a story and a small town usually has one or two. In 1996 there was a primary, a Congressional primary. Two people by the name of Ed Munster and a local character by the name of Andrew Norton ran in this primary. And we'd like to say that Andrew Norton won by a margin of four to one, but also literally he won four to one.

In the Town of Bolton the Second Congressional has a very small piece carved out of that particular town. The town only has 5,000 people in it, has about 2,600 people registered to vote and in the small chunk they have about 180 people registered to vote in the Second Congressional Portion.

In that particular primary, it was only in the Second Congressional and they had to hold a full primary. On that day only five people came out to vote.

When we look at the cost in a small town, it really begins to pinch the pocketbook where we had a cost on that day in 1996 of $1,200 with only five people voting, it came out to $246 per voter.

When you look at going closer to today, the 2000 presidential primary, we found that with the First and the Second Congressional, we cannot hold them in the same place, they have to be held in two separate polling places which means we have to open two buildings. The cost was $1,400 and they found that two-thirds went to the larger and one-third went to the smaller Second Congressional piece.

In the presidential primary, only 14 people came out to vote and it ended up being $34 per voter, and in contrast to the rest of the town that came out in the First Congressional District it was $2.94 per voter. And I know it's hard to put that just in figures of dollars and cents, but in a small town where you look at $2,000, $3,000, $2,000, $1,000 for each of these primaries and you have to set up two separate facilities, it's very hard when you're talking about such small numbers. It certainly could be handled in one.

So what I'd like to ask today when you're considering the divisions for the Congressional districts, please consider the small towns. And if I could ask that you consider them as whole towns. It makes a big difference in their pocketbook when it comes down to the limited funds that they do have for primaries and full elections.

I'd like to also say that I live in a district that's a swing district. Ten years ago we were in the Second Congressional and the Town of Bolton and a couple of the other small towns in my district. Presently we are in the First Congressional District. So I have experience in both. And under that, both times for a long time it was the same Congressional people seated.

So I'd like to say that I feel that having had the experience, it was better for the small towns being lumped with the Second Congressional District if you're looking at the swing towns on the border there, if you have to juggle towns, whole towns. There is more of a commonality with the small towns in the Second Congressional District if you're looking at the Towns of Andover, Bolton, Hebron and Marlborough.

And I'd like to thank you very much for the time that you have put into this very serious matter and I look forward to hearing what your results are. Thank you very much.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Representative. Just a minute. Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just out of curiosity, it's no big thing, I live in a town that's small and it's split and we don't have two

buildings for polling places, all we do is have one polling place and people come in and if you're in the Fifth District you go in one line. If you're the Third District, you go in another line. This has been mentioned several times, so I thought it difficult to comprehend why you have to open two buildings. It's just a question.

REP. SAWYER: Because of the limited open community space in the town there wasn't two separate rooms in one building that was able to be used. So what had to happen because most of the machines were stored at the Town Hall and there's one community room, they had to have a second handicapped access place. They were told by the Secretary of the State that they had to have a separate facility and they took that to mean a separate building.

SEN. CRISCO: Well, maybe someone should talk to the Town of Woodbridge because we have one room and we have two districts vote.

REP. SAWYER: We were told that that would not be acceptable.

SEN. CRISCO: It's been going on for years. Thank you. That's just for your information.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Senator. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Representative.

REP. SAWYER: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. DELUCA: Our next is David Borowy to be followed by Jeff Nichols.

AL ADINOLFI: As you know, I'm not David Borowy. David Borowy is the Mayor of Cheshire. He got called away just before this meeting and he asked if you would be so kind as to let me read his statement into the record.

SEN. DELUCA: That's fine. Just identify yourself.

AL ADINOLFI: My name is Al Adinolfi, a resident of Cheshire. Thank you members of the Reapportionment Committee for your time today. As Mayor of the Town of Cheshire, I'm proud of our 28,500 citizens. We also host many state facilities such as the largest prison population and other state training facilities.

I am asking you today to consider that as a member in good standing of the community called Connecticut, we'd like to have a local voice in Hartford. The reality of the situation is that we don't have a person who lives in Cheshire representing us in Hartford. That is because of the fact that ten years ago at the last redistricting broke Cheshire into three assembly districts.

I feel that a town of 28,500 people deserves a district that is wholly Cheshire. I think that the benefit of daily contact at the grocery store, video store and just driving on the same roads would be an advantage to our citizens. The State of Connecticut should have such a voice from such a loyal town that does its share for the state. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. David J. Borowy, Mayor of Cheshire.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you, Sir. Jeff Nicholas to be followed by Representative Art Feltman. It's nice to see someone from my neighboring town come up. Yes, welcome.

JEFF NICHOLAS: Good afternoon, Lou. I'm Jeff Nicholas and I'm the Democratic First Selectman of Bethlehem. In Bethlehem, like in other small towns across Connecticut, we pride ourselves in being bipartisan. It's not just a slogan, it's a way of life. We put progress before partisanship and we build support and reach a consensus and we make the needed improvements to our towns and communities.

And today I'm speaking to you in the spirit of bipartisanship. It is important for this Committee to realize that after redistricting is over, one member of Congress will not have his or her seat.

It's safe to say that all the Congressional Districts will change substantially as you add enough people to insure that each district has 681,113 residents.

It's my request today that you, too, follow our example of bipartisanship and draw a Congressional map that does not force my Republican Congresswoman Nancy Johnson to run against Democratic Congressman Jim Maloney. Both Representative Johnson and Maloney have developed a reputation for outstanding constituent service. Both are influential members of our delegation. Congressman Maloney is now our most senior member in the Connecticut delegation on two important committees, Armed Services and Financial Service and his service on the Armed Services Committee is crucial to Connecticut employers like UTC and Sikorsky and by serving on the Financial Services Committee, Maloney watches out for one of Connecticut's longest and well known business, our insurance companies. His work aids Connecticut financial institutions like Peoples' Bank and Webster.

Likewise, Congresswoman Johnson on the other hand is a member of the important Ways and Means Committee and she chairs the Health Care Subcommittee. And for a state like Connecticut and some of our largest employers like Aetna and Cigna, having Representative Johnson on that Committee is very valuable to these companies and the thousands of jobs they create.

One of the goals of redistricting should be to keep these experienced, influential people like Representatives Johnson and Maloney serving Connecticut residents. And to draw these two members into the same Congressional District is going to eliminate one of our most effective members of Congress.

I think a delegation without either Johnson or Maloney is going to be detrimental to the state, its industries, its employees for all would suffer without having their type of advocacy and the experience they bring to the job.

Seniority has its strengths and it does take a new member of Congress a while to master the legislative process of Washington, D. C. and to build relationships with other members, Committee chairs and labor and business organizations that have a tremendous impact back in the district.

I remember as I was graduating from high school and when I was in college, when I was in law school, Nancy Johnson has always been my Congresswoman in the Sixth District and it would be a loss for Connecticut if she were forced to run and lose possibly against Jim Maloney.

We would set our state back if we were to blatantly disregard the impact of these Committee assignments and after all, for those of you here who have served on Committee and have been Committee chairs here in Hartford, you understand the power and the ability you have. And that analogy holds true with the United States trillion dollar budgets as much as it does with Connecticut's billion dollar budgets.

In fact, even though Connecticut sends to Washington the most money per capita because of our state's very high income levels, we still rank 25th among all states in how much we get back per capita and I think this is a testament to their effectiveness and their seniority.

I don't consider myself a demographic specialist. I am not. I've read articles about the impact of the census to know that the western side of the state and Fairfield County was the epicenter of Connecticut's growth over the last ten years and this remarkable growth accounted for 55,922 more people and nearly half of Connecticut's 118,449 residents. The Fifth District is now the largest Congressional district in the state.

Growth and lack thereof are points that can't be disputed. It would seem to me that the Redistricting Committee has a way to preserve both Representative Johnson and Maloney by looking to expand their districts while eliminating or splitting the current Second District and creating two eastern Connecticut districts comprised of small towns.

Maintaining bipartisanship and preserving Connecticut's seniority should be the goals of this Committee and I respectfully ask this Committee to honor my request and nor force Representative Johnson or Representative Maloney to have to run against each other as incumbents with seniority.

And I thank you for your time and efforts and I wish you good luck because this is most difficult.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you for coming to testify. Just a clarification. You had mentioned that seniority is an important issue and that Connecticut gets, ranks 25th out of the 50 states in what we receive back from D.C. We actually rank 50th out of 50 so right now our seniority, even though we have some senior members, we are not receiving back, you know, we are not in the middle of the pack, we're at the end of the pack.

But, eventually, these --

JEFF NICHOLAS: Could I answer that?

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Sure.

JEFF NICHOLAS: I don't agree with you. I know we get back a small percentage based on the huge amounts of taxes we pay and we have the highest average incomes in the country and we pay huge amounts of taxes.

We rank last based on what we get back based on what we've paid. But if you look at what we get per capita, we are either 24th, 25th or 26th. And if you're going to make reference to our sending the most money per capita, you must consider that we rank 25th or 26th, whatever, based on what we get back again per capita.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: That may be true but proportionately for what we send down there, we rank 50th for what we get back. Someone makes then half as much as we do and maybe the same as we do, but we're sending that much more down to Washington, D. C., so we really rank 50th.

I understand why you'd want to protect the two Congress persons because none of us really want to put two people, two incumbents in the same district. We're forced to. But when you talk about splitting the Second District, eventually there are going to be, Congress people are going to move on, the incumbents won't be there and you're left with the districts.

And what you'd have in the Second District is a district split in half with Hartford in one and New Haven in the other. And my question is, you said there would be small town districts. But there would be larger cities within those districts.

The argument that was given to us last week at the public hearing in Norwich is that they feared that the districts would be dominated by those two larger cities. Do you know how we remedy that situation?

JEFF NICHOLAS: I don't. And I know it's a difficult answer. It's difficult no matter how you look at it and everybody up here probably is going to have a different opinion.

I don't know how much influence a gigantic district comprised of all small towns would have, either. I think that's the argument in the alternative.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay. And my other question is, again seniority has been mentioned, not just tonight, a few other nights some other people have mentioned seniority.

What about the argument that was given to us that well, Congressman Maloney is a more senior member. Congressman Johnson is a more senior member. Congressman Simmons is a freshman member. He's also in the majority. Someone said the majority would actually have more say in what happens than someone who is no longer in the minority. Do you have an answer to that, or do you have any ideas on that?

JEFF NICHOLAS: I would just consider that Congressman Maloney and Johnson, based on the respective positions and the connections they've made and the networking they've done and based on their Committee assignments and the demonstrated record that we have, that they would have much more clout in Washington.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: I appreciate your answers and I appreciate you coming up. Thank you very much.

SEN. DELUCA: Representative Ward.

REP. WARD: Thank you. You indicated that you were very clear that you would prefer that Congressman Maloney and Congressman Johnson not be in the same district. Are you also indicating that Congressman Maloney not be in a district with Congressman Shays or that Congresswoman Johnson not be in a district with Congressman Larson? So you're sort of saying the only real fair system is if DeLauro runs against Simmons or DeLauro runs against Shays, or, I'm just trying to pin down what you're asking us.

JEFF NICHOLAS: I really haven't extrapolated to include every conceivable race or every conceivable scenario. I'm just indicating that I know with regard to the Sixth District that Congresswoman Johnson nearly as long as I've been a vote has been a Congresswoman and has built up a great deal of clout and I believe that she has a great deal of seniority and is one of the most powerful women in the United States at this point.

And if you look at the growth on the chart farthest to your left, you'll see that the Fifth District has, I think, increased by the greatest percentage and is the largest congressional district. And just based on those factors and Jim Maloney's seniority and the work he's done, that those two districts be undisturbed but I have not considered every analysis or every conceivable race and I know that's your job.

REP. WARD: Thank you.

SEN. DELUCA: Senator Crisco, do you have a comment?

SEN. CRISCO: I just wanted to add, this is not subjective or personal, but basically what you're stating, and I know it's not your intention, is that the other four Congress people don't count and I think that once you look at the whole objective, you're entitled to your opinion. But you (inaudible) that Representative Simmons used to be a member of the legislative body and is doing an excellent job.

I appreciate what you're saying but I think we have to be very sensitive that we have other people that are doing a great job and Representative Johnson and Maloney are personal friends of mine, but I find it kind of difficult just to accept that argument. I would say we have a job to do and that is our responsibility. But you do have two other people out there. The only reason I mention is because we've heard this repeatedly and unfortunately you were the one that mentioned it again today and I just want to bring it to your attention.

JEFF NICHOLAS: And in no way do I mean to impugn their representations or the jobs that they're doing. You should just recognize that I'm from a very small town, Bethlehem, Lou's district and I received Nancy's newsletter so I'm very well aware and I work with her and I work with Lou and I have an office in Jim Maloney's district and I run into many of his constituents who speak most highly of him and that is why I'm here. But I don't mean to impugn anyone else.

SEN. DELUCA: Just one last thing, Jeff, that I would say. There are two absolutes in this process in regards to the Congressional districts. One that you mentioned, they each have to have approximately 681,100 in change and that would be as close to even as possible, according to federal guidelines. That's an absolute. We must do that.

The other absolute is, no matter which we cut it, there is going to be a minimum of two Congress people in the same district, possibly it could even happen to be three if we wanted to work hard at it. But I'm saying, it's a minimum of two.

So, I appreciate your respect for yours as being part of that area and being familiar with both of them, I would probably agree. But so doesn't everyone else in every other district and every other hearing and that presents the problem we are faced with, unfortunately, that we will still have to resolve. But in the final result, two people will end up in the same district.

Thank you very much for coming.

JEFF NICHOLAS: Thank you very much.

SEN. DELUCA: Next is Representative Art Feltman, to be followed by Joe Marinan. I hope I'm pronouncing names properly. I know I did yours, Art, but.

Before you do, if I may, I just want to say that the Speaker Moira Lyons has joined us on the Committee. A little late, but she's here. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you, Art.

SEN. FELTMAN: Thank you, Senator DeLuca, Representative Lyons, Representative Ward, other distinguished members of the Committee. I'm speaking this afternoon on behalf of both myself and Representative Marie Kirkley-Bey who's seated behind me who are the Co-Chairs of the Hartford Legislative Delegation and Representative Kirkley-Bey is signed up but she's asked if she could be taken off the list, something like (inaudible).

It isn't necessarily a safe assumption.

I want to speak about the drawing of the lines of both the Congressional and the Legislative levels, specifically as it relates to the City and Region of Hartford. First to the issue of the Region. We now have a Congressman from the First Congressional District based in East Hartford who represents most of the Hartford Region.

We understand that the district lines have to shift and that that district will have to grow. It is our feeling that we would like to see the Capitol Region of our state continue to be represented by one Congress person and for a number of reasons.

One is that the Capitol Region thinks of itself as one unit. We have, you know, transportation, the transportation infrastructure is based on the idea of essential core and spokes radiating out from that core. The economics in terms of where the job centers are and the residential patterns that relate to where those jobs are, the media set up relating to the Hartford Region, people in the Hartford Region tend to read one newspaper on a daily basis and they tend to listen to one TV station or tune in to one TV station and a major radio station and there isn't what's known, what you describe as a community of interest in the Hartford region.

It would be my suggestion that since the First Congressional District needs to be expanded, that part of the Hartford Capitol Region that is not presently incorporated in the boundaries of the First Congressional District is the area around Bradley Airport which we believe to be an integral part of the Capitol Region, that that airport does relate very strongly and directly to Hartford businesses that people very much are coming into the airport or to do business in the Capitol Region and that there be, and that the people who live in that vicinity very often do commute to jobs in the Hartford area and vice-versa. There are a number of people from Hartford who commute to jobs up at the airport.

So since there does need to be a realignment of the boundary of the Congressional District that that region would be a logical one since it does fit within the community of interest definition for a political district.

With regard to the issue of legislative plan, redistricting plan, we realize that within Hartford we have lost population, that that stated population loss is a little bit overstated. As many of you know from reading the newspapers, the University of Hartford which contains a substantial population was erroneously excluded from the count that was released preliminarily by the Census Bureau. However, everyone admits that this was an error. It was an error that unfortunately seems to take place every ten years where all the students and others who live on the campus of the University of Hartford are counted because they're from an address of the school as West Hartford, they were counted into West Hartford when they in fact live exclusively within the City of Hartford. So the loss of population is overstated.

But I would like to express very strongly that we believe that the City of Hartford has problems that are the most that are extreme and you know, we've been reading the newspaper and we know that the problems in our schools are extreme, the problems in our streets are extreme, housing blight, other issues and we do, while some of those are problems that may spill over into our suburban neighbors, they really are at their most, they're expressed in the highest definition in the City of Hartford and we feel that the City of Hartford does think of itself as a community that those of us who live in the City of Hartford, who represent it at the State Capitol are those who are most familiar and live day by day, minute by minute and hour by hour with those very pressing problems of living in an urbanized environment and that we feel that the people in the City of Hartford are most effectively represented by, if at all possible, by legislators who do reside within the City of Hartford because we live with those problems day to day.

And there is a community of interest within the City of Hartford in resolving those problems and we have, I think, demonstrated that community of interest in our posture here in the Capitol and the unity that this delegation has shown as you know, many of you who are in the Legislature have experienced during the budget process. The Hartford Board of Education transformation, other issues, we have been a unified group because we do live in the City and understand the City despite our maybe perhaps racial and gender differences, we understand the City's problems the same way.

And that is not the way that the City of Hartford's present district did. Significant portions of our city were ten years ago, were carved out and were annexed to legislators from other districts. In the case of the south end of Hartford of which I'm most familiar, there was a situation ten years ago where an incumbent legislator, the story goes, was concerned about reelection prospects and were to avoid because of a fear that he would not be reelected in his home turf, a significant portion of Hartford was annexed on to his district in an effort to provide what we're seeing as safer votes.

Although that legislator did not prevail in that election and his strategy, although we can understand it, was not successful because the suburban constituency still did not wish to see him back. We're still left with the consequences of that redistricting today in that about half of the south end of Hartford is represented by legislators who are suburban based. And there are other examples of that.

So we, what I'm trying to ask of the Committee is that you keep Hartford together. We do see ourselves as one community. We read the same newspaper. We have the same transportation. We go after neighborhood meetings. We are represented by the same people at City Hall and we do feel that for all of our troubles, we're in this together and we're going to rise and fall together and we hope to be spoken for at the State Capitol by the same people who live in our communities.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Representative. Any questions? Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL: Right now, Hartford has, I think, the largest number of border crossings of districts and what I'm getting from you is, if I understand what you're saying, you'd like to see that number reduced or at least not expanded in terms of creating districts that would cross the borders, either expanded in terms in terms of the number or the sections of districts that include parts of Hartford to have larger parts of suburban areas included in them. Is that what I'm correct in understanding what you're saying?

REP. FELTMAN: What I'm saying is that we would like to see the residents of the City of Hartford represented by leaders who live in Hartford. In some cases that may, all that may require is to have sections of the City that were carved out to be, to not be carved out. In other areas, it may mean that there would need to be border crossings but we don't want to see significant sections of Hartford in order to be able to come up with the right numbers.

But in no case do we want to see a Hartford resident represented by a non-Hartford resident if that's possible.

REP. O'NEILL: Okay. I think I've got it. Thank you.

SEN. DELUCA: Further questions or comments? Thank you, Representative.

REP. FELTMAN: Thank you.

SEN. DELUCA: Next is Joe Marinan to be followed by Jim Goggins. I hope I'm pronouncing your name properly.

JOE MARINAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I'm Joe Marinan from the City of Meriden. I've been Mayor for the past eight years, of this city. I come before the Redistricting Committee today to respectfully request that you recognize the unique relationship between Meriden and Waterbury in the Valley.

Keep these cities in the Valley together, the same Congressional District, the Fifth. Meriden is the third largest city in the Fifth District and is closely connected to Waterbury via I-84 and I-691. Indeed, Waterbury and Meriden are only one town apart separated solely by Cheshire, which is itself in the Fifth Congressional District.

Because Meriden is only 14 miles away from Waterbury, commuters live and work in each of the respective cities. Our proximity has led us to develop a strong community of interest. Mass transportation has been and should be at the forefront of bringing Meriden and Waterbury together again.

Many years ago, a trolley ran between these two great cities and demonstrated even long ago we were connected with Waterbury. Today, the two cities are very conveniently connected by I-691 and I-84. Meriden-Waterbury also share a proud industrial heritage. Meriden is known as the Silver City and Waterbury, the Brass City.

With the transition from manufacturing based economy to a service and information based economy, Meriden-Waterbury are encountering the same challenges and need to remain coordinated at the federal level to effectively meet education and economic development challenges and to secure the necessary federal funds.

In addition, highway funds for I-691 and I-84 should also be centrally facilitated through one Congressional office.

Waterbury also helps us in other ways. It is in Waterbury where many of our young students receive their education at the UConn Waterbury Branch, or at the Naugatuck Valley Community College. Our many connections with Waterbury make it entirely not appropriate for Meriden to be placed anywhere else.

We do not desire to be included with Hartford or New Haven. Within those Congressional Districts, Meriden, due to its distance from the larger cities in those districts would be just an after thought. We are located nearly equally distant between those two cities. It wouldn't make any sense to put us in either district for we don't read in great numbers the Courant or the Register and for myself, I just can't bring myself to read the Waterbury Republican and we don't have a long history with those cities like we do with Waterbury, a very close neighbor.

Now should we be located in the Second District. Meriden simply has nothing in common with the small towns of eastern Connecticut. Besides our economic and transportation links, Meriden and Waterbury are connected with the Latino community. One of the biggest surprises this year for some were the census results that showed a dramatic increase in the Hispanic population throughout Meriden and Waterbury.

No longer are Hispanics living in one distinctive area of my community. They are enjoying the fruits of their labor in using their emerging economic status and becoming part of the emerging middle class of Meriden. The same holds true I am told, of Waterbury.

This community of interest should not be separated for political purposes. One of the state's major Hispanic newspaper, El Tiempo, is published in my community and has extensive circulation in nearby Waterbury. Our Hispanic population worships together, attends the same community and cultural events, read the same Hispanic newspapers and listen to the same Hispanic radio stations. Hispanics in our communities have grown in size and have grown stronger together both economically and politically.

Now is not the time for you to splinter this emerging group and its power base by separating them into two separate and distinct Congressional districts. Our two cities have long established their connections to each other and that connection should not be severed during this redistricting process.

I respectfully ask that you honor our community of interest and keep Meriden and Waterbury in the same Congressional District. Thank you very much.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you, Sir.

JOE MARINAN: Thank you.

SEN. DELUCA: Jim Goggins, to be followed by Al Simon.

JIM GOGGIN: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Goggin and I serve as Personnel Director for the Borough of Naugatuck. I'm here today representing a bipartisan group of elected officials from the Naugatuck Valley, including my mayor, Joan Taft of Naugatuck, Mayor Jim DellaVolpe of Ansonia, First Selectman Susan Cable of Beacon Falls, Mayor Mark Garofalo of Derby and First Selectman Scott Barden of Seymour.

The Naugatuck Valley is composed of seven cities and towns abutting the Naugatuck River, including Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Oxford, Ansonia, Derby and Shelton. The Valley is very much a community of interest.

We share and are a part of the Council of Governments of Central Naugatuck Valley, the Valley Regional Planning Agency, the Valley Transit District, the Valley United Way and the Greater Valley Chamber of Commerce. We also have a hospital and not one, but two weekly newspapers, the Valley Gazette and the Valley Times.

Our families commute on Route 8 and we share a proud history of long established high school athletic rivalries and now in the information age, our region is more connected than ever in the worldwide web in a web site devoted to the interest of the Valley which is www.electronicvally.org.

The strength and unity of the Valley was recently nationally recognized and honored as we were together named an All-American city.

I am here this afternoon, then, not only to describe the special pride we take in being residents of the Valley and I'm happy that one of our own, Senator Joe Crisco is on the Redistricting Committee. It is important, furthermore, that during redistricting, our community stay together.

I am already aware of the problems and difficulties created when a community is divided into different districts. Currently, Naugatuck is served by two State Senators and two State Representatives and this causes confusion amongst our constituents. The problems associated with redistricting should not be further compounded by dividing the Congressional Districts serving the Naugatuck Valley.

I respectfully ask that members of the Redistricting Committee to keep the entire Naugatuck Valley together in one Congressional District connected to the City of Waterbury. The Naugatuck Valley has always had a special relationship with the City of Waterbury. Route 8 and the Naugatuck River and the Valley Rail Line connect the Valley to Waterbury.

The cities of Naugatuck and Waterbury are both part of the Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Planning Agency and are also joint members of the same Council of Governments. In addition, the Waterbury newspaper, the Waterbury-Republican American has a wide readership in the Valley and its Valley bureau office is based in Naugatuck.

Naugatuck Valley Community College and the University of Connecticut, two institutions devoted to higher learning and educating many of our Valley residents are both located in Waterbury. The Naugatuck Valley special relationship with Waterbury dates back to the turn of the century as the Valley and Waterbury share the same industrial heritage of brass and copper manufacturing and fabrication.

Finally, Waterbury has served through the Route 8 interstate 84 connection as the gateway to the rest of the state for the Naugatuck Valley and according to the Connecticut State Registrar in the manual it says 1911, six of the seven towns in the Valley, with the exception of Shelton, have been with Waterbury in the same Congressional District.

The tradition of ninety years and our special relationship with Waterbury should be preserved. For us to continue our success, we need to continue to be linked together. Our ability to work together would be diminished if we needed to coordinate our efforts for federal grants for education, economic development, transportation improvements and brownfields revitalization through two different members of Congress.

The cities and towns in the Valley and Waterbury have stayed together through fires, floods and pollution and recovery of the Naugatuck River. And we have emerged stronger than ever.

So I ask that the members of the Redistricting Committee honor the spirit of the Valley and keep our cities and towns together in one Congressional District anchored with and by the City of Waterbury. Thank you so much.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Thank you, Sir. The next speaker is Al Simon to be followed by Steve Cassano.

AL SIMON: Good afternoon. My name is Al Simon. I'm a member of the Windsor Town Council. First, I want to recognize that you have very difficult decisions to make and I appreciate that you probably won't be able to make everybody happy.

A lot of the requests have come for some very big decisions and how to redistrict the Congressional Districts. But I'm going to ask you for something a little bit smaller.

Windsor is a town of 28,000 people. We are currently represented in the State Legislature by two State Senators and three House members and Windsor comprises a majority in none of those districts. We are the only town of our size where we do not have a majority legislative district. And in fact, I do believe that a town of our size ought to have a district within its own borders and that's what I'm here to ask for.

It wasn't always this way. We did have a majority legislative district until 1981 two redistrictings ago. Democrats and Republicans in Windsor are supportive of this proposal and in fact four of the five Representatives we have, Representatives Eberle, Carr, Fahrbach, Senator Coleman have all expressed support for this effort. I don't have an answer from Senator Kissel. I don't know that he's opposed or for.

But I think the basic facts of how districts are set up in this state really lend credence to our request that we should have a majority legislative district and hope that you'll consider that. Thank you.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you. Steve Cassano, to be followed by Walter Pawelkiewicz.

STEVE CASSANO: Thank you very much. This is an unusual setting. Usually to come here to testify the garage is filled, the wind chill factor is 20 below zero. So it's a nice change.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We applaud your efforts to establish new Congressional and Legislative District boundaries based on the results of the year 2000 census.

I serve as the Mayor of the Town of Manchester and Chairman of the Capitol Region Council of Governments. In both capacities, I see on a regular basis the importance of how these district's lines are drawn.

The Legislative Districts are obviously extremely important to our cities and towns but today I would like to focus on the Congressional Districts because of the impact of the loss of one seat in Congress will have on Connecticut.

I want to state clearly at the beginning, that for us it's not an issue of politics, Democrats or Republicans. Currently, the 29 towns in our Capitol Region are represented in three different Congressional Districts, the First, the Second and the Sixth. We have been served well by all of the Congressional Representatives that have served our region and often it helps us to be able to work with Congressional Representatives of both parties. So our motivation in testifying today is not political. It is motivated by geographic, functional connectivity.

In recent years, the orientation of the Greater Hartford Area has grown ever stronger toward the north, especially in the transportation planning work that we do, but also as a result of the way our regional economy operates. We have forged stronger ties with our neighbors to the north in Springfield. Much of the work that we do with our Congressional Representatives and with various federal agencies is geared to those transportation and economic ties.

Bradley International Airport is increasingly recognized as an important economic engine and transportation facility for Greater Hartford and Springfield. The proposal to provide inter-city rail service connecting New Haven and Hartford and Springfield enjoys strong support because of this same kind of orientation.

The work of Riverfront Recapture in our region demonstrates, in our region depends in large measure on the cooperation that we built with communities north of Hartford and East Hartford, all the way up to the Pioneer Valley.

Newly created Hartford-Springfield economic partnership and the Hartford-Springfield knowledge corridor continue to forge new bonds between our region.

For all of these reasons, we respectfully recommend that in your redistricting deliberations you consider these views and develop a district for most of Greater Hartford which allows for a stronger functional connectivity, especially in terms of transportation assets and economic times.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Of course, I'll be glad to answer any questions.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you Mayor. Questions or comments? Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL: What you said at the beginning sort of touches on what you haven't been to all of these hearings but essentially there's a recurring theme which is in order for a community to get anything or to have success in dealing with federal programs, you really, all the broader community has to be within the same District.

And you seem to be saying that even though the Greater Hartford area is split between three Congressional Districts, you've been able to be successful in dealing with Congress in getting grants and federal funds and that sort of thing. Is that basically, am I summarizing what you said correctly?

STEVEN CASSANO: I think that's correct. I think that's probably because the individuals, the six individuals who have served have done, I think, a magnificent job of functioning as one for the best of the State of Connecticut. And so that when primarily most of our towns, the majority of our towns in the First Congressional, then the Second District and then the Sixth. If we have meetings in at least two of those we're pretty much assured that the three Representatives of those towns will in fact have interaction with each other.

The reality is, we've also gone to, in some cases, all six congressional districts, particularly to make the case for funds needed for Hartford or wherever it might be for transportation funds and so on. We feel that sometimes you've got to go beyond your own boundaries. For that matter, we've gone to Senator Chaffee when he was alive, to Rhode Island for some of the issues. So we've used the system, I think. But quite honestly it's a lot easier if we were down to maybe two, it's just easier and more functional for us to do our job.

REP. O'NEILL: But your experience has been that even with three you've been able to succeed.

STEVE CASSANO: Right.

REP. O'NEILL: Thank you.

SEN. DELUCA: Representative Ward.

REP. WARD: Mayor,

(GAP FROM SIDE A TO SIDE B)

Enfield, Suffield, East Granby --

STEVE CASSANO: The 91 corridor. We have the new transportation --

REP. WARD: As opposed to northeast, you're more talking north.

STEVE CASSANO: North. Right.

REP. WARD: Thank you.

STEVE CASSANO: And again, the significance of that is the work that we're doing, we're meeting on a monthly basis now with Springfield, not only CROG in the Pioneer Valley as far as regional planning agencies but the chambers, different economic groups, academic institutions. There are several groups that are working together and functioning as one trying to look at the region as a region of one, that region being Springfield-Hartford as opposed to two different states with a boundary in the middle.

REP. WARD: Let me just, I don't think the Capitol Region has been too shy about asking legislators like me who live in the Third for money either.

STEVE CASSANO: That's right. We do our homework. We know where to go.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Mayor.

STEVE CASSANO: Thank you.

SEN. DELUCA: Walter, you're next and then to be followed by Lisa Scails.

WALTER PAWELKIEWICZ: Thank you, Senator. And thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the Reapportionment Committee. I'm sorry I missed the meeting in the Second CD because I had a conflict. I have two very brief requests for the Committee.

I'd like your indulgence in keeping the 49th District of Windham-Willimantic in tact. It's a community that I've represented over the last ten years in different capacities and its population, fortunately for myself and the town has grown over the last ten years, although moderately.

I'd also like to echo and reinforce my colleagues' cry for keeping the Second Congressional District in tact and retaining its current form as much as possible.

In my years of public service, I've been in a number of different capacities, both regional and statewide where I recognize the commonality of the community interest in eastern Connecticut and I won't bore you with social, economic and demographic factors that would make that argument for us. But I do realize that you're faced with a challenge because any time you have to reduce the number of Representatives from five to four, it's going to be a difficult task.

I just hope that the fact that our basically rural small town area which sometimes gets, I wouldn't say shunted aside but maybe it does not have its needs addressed as demonstratively as other larger urban impact kind of areas and I just kind of give you two examples, Route 6 and Route 11 to kind of footnote and document that.

And I want to especially thank you for your time. I know you have many other folks that would like to speak to you and thank you for your indulgence this afternoon.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Just to mention that although you weren't there last week at the Second District you were well represented. There were quite a few people who came out to express your views.

REP. PAWELKIEWICZ: Thank you, Senator. And thank you for the pronunciation of my name. It makes me proud that my daughter married a Settia.

SEN. DELUCA: Next is Lisa Scails to be followed by Dorothy Blanche.

LISA SCAILS: Good afternoon Speaker Lyons, Senator DeLuca and the distinguished members of the Redistricting Committee. My name is Lisa Scails and I am president of the Connecticut NAACP. I appreciate this opportunity to come before you today on behalf of Connecticut State Conference of NAACP Branches representing 16 branches across the state, including the Cities of New London, Norwich, Hartford, Meriden, Wallingford, Middlesex County, New Britain, Bristol, Waterbury, Ansonia, Danbury, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, Norwalk, New Canaan and Greenwich.

Connecticut NAACP is also a major partner in the Connecticut Partnership for Fair Redistricting of which you have heard prior testimony.

Connecticut NAACP is extremely thankful of the state's redistricting committees for convening these hearings to gain insight into the concerns and recommendations of the community with respect to redrawing both the Congressional and State District lines. We are also grateful that the Committee has provided opportunity for the hearings around this state, thereby making it possible for greater participation.

I'm quite positive that no one knows better than the eight of you of its particular responsibility and of the difficult task that lies ahead. Certainly these public hearings, if taken seriously, should provide some needed direction from the people of whom all of you are represented.

Yet, at this point and in this year 2001 it is still disappointing that this same Committee has not found it necessary to do more to insure equal representation in the communities of like interest which represent are state, are protected throughout this process.

The NAACP believes redistricting to be a critical issue in the black community which has historically and continues to be at a disadvantage from the political process. As a result of the travesty played out in Florida which the NAACP believes is just a macrocosm of what has occurred throughout this country, is perhaps the most recent example of a system that is flawed.

Every form of government across this land is forced to examine closely the issues of voting rights protected for all people through election reform, campaign finance reform, voter empowerment and redistricting.

Because the right to vote is the most sacred franchise of our democracy, these hearings must challenge all people and particularly the Committee, as you carry out your work to the thorny challenge of equal representation and full participation under the law.

The larger African-American community is still faced with long-standing struggles with respect to livable wages and affordable housing, redlining when accessing credit and capital for homes and small businesses and quality education for our children and contrary to recent reports, social realities do dictate that racial profiling continues to be a problem in our community.

These shared realities, among others, does more than classify blacks, Latinos and other groups with the same concerns as community of interest. We believe it also serves as a reminder that we still live in a racially divided society and in order for there to be fairness and equal representation, in order for our government to truly reflect the growing diversity in our state, our communities need to stay together. More minorities need to be elected to office.

I've taken the opportunity to review transcripts from prior hearings. The racial makeup of our state's population is by now well known. More than half a million people represent both the African-American and Latino communities combined in our state.

The Committee's diligence toward making sure there is equal representation for all people as required, if taken seriously, these considerations and others. Also, the NAACP believes that this task is far too important to rely on the eight member Committee alone.

We are actively engaged in drawing alternative plans for the Committee's consideration. Already we have determined that it is quite possible to draw compact, contiguous and incumbency protected districts that will still preserve minority communities which we will present at a later time.

Connecticut prides itself on being progressive in the enactment of legislation in addressing certain social responsibilities. The NAACP calls upon the Committee to exercise its political prudence in meeting this challenge and keeping communities together.

Help to restore the minority voter's confidence that their vote does count and their voices can and will be heard in our proud State of Connecticut.

In the words of a veteran Alabama civil rights activist, Dr. Gwendolyn Patten, we have fought and died for the right to vote, but what good is the right if we do not have candidates to vote for?

We welcome the opportunity to assist the Committee in its work. Thank you very much for your time.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you for coming. Next is Dorothy Blanche, to be followed by Hamilton Brosious.

DOROTHY BLANCHE: I'm representing the League of Women Voters of Connecticut and we have long been involved in legislative reapportionment.

SEN. DELUCA: Excuse me, would you please repeat your name for the record, please.

DOROTHY BLANCHE: I'm Dorothy Blanche.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you.

DOROTHY BLANCHE: The election law specialist of the State League of Women Voters.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you.

DOROTHY BLANCHE: Thank you. And we have been a long time involved in legislative reapportionment and redistricting and have proposed guidelines since 1969 and I served in this capacity in 1991 and also with hearings before the legislative task force in 1995 and of course, Senator DeLuca, you have been there since the very beginning, serving as co-chair in 1995 and again today, which is important because we need continuity as well.

And the, our concern historically, and still is, is fair and equitable representation of the people of our state and we have so testified. Specifically, this fairness includes the right to vote and participate in the political process. The ability to run for public office and to choose candidates for office.

Minority representation, you have just heard a presentation of that, preserving as best possible the continuity and compactness of districts which again is very important to people. As you have heard, the integrity of political subdivisions and preserving as well a community of interest which are all affected by the redistricting plan.

And we are also concerned about methodology and I'll talk about that in a minute. Methodology was considered, especially in the 1995 legislative redistricting task force because there was great concern over the methodology that was used in 1991 and some good things came out of that that did not exist in 1991.

Plans are made available for timely review by legislators and the public before the legislative vote. That did not happen in 1991. Public hearings are conducted in Congressional Districts and after any Committee revision of the plans, that did not happen in 1991. And one assumes that all hearings and Committee meetings are conforming to FOIA for public notification. None of this occurred then and this is very important in terms of progress, in terms of what we need to have in redistricting.

But fairness also includes fair representation in the reapportionment redistricting committees themselves. Public hearings and the right to review plans in a timely manner are important but meaningless if the decision making committees are not reflective of Connecticut's Legislature or the state's population.

The Committee of 2001 is composed of legislative leaders, six men, two women, which is a big increase from our one in 1991 and a very competent, capable person as well, all Caucasian and no minorities. I would hope that after this session and this job of redistricting is done, that perhaps another redistricting task force might be taken up in a couple of years after you have all survived what is going on here to review this process.

I wanted to add an addendum after watching much of the testimony on television, for which, again, we did not have in 1991 and the district hearings in New Haven, Waterbury, Bridgeport and Norwich areas which we watched at 3:00 a.m and 4:00 a.m. I might add. The concerns of the League of Women Voters regarding contiguity and minority representation were repeated by local citizens in each area. This is a great concern.

And also a great concern as we're hearing now are the differences that exist between the ten year time period of the last redistricting which need to be carefully considered and those would be primarily the ones you've heard here that contiguity is affected by infrastructure changes such as Routes 8, 84 and others and they were repeatedly mentioned as affecting Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden and now other areas that we now hear.

The increase in minority population and its concentration, especially Latino, and its ability to share in fair representation was a concern throughout all of these hearings and was a concern of ours in 1991 as well.

The increase in lower Fairfield County population, much of which is surrounded by New York State or Long Island Sound mandating eastern expansion is important and could profoundly affect cities such as Bridgeport with large minority populations as well as other more suburban areas.

We appreciate immensely having been involved in this ourselves, the difficulty of your task and we respect each and every one of you on the Commission and thank you for the many hours of work that it has already entailed and will entail. And thank you very much.

SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Questions or comments? Thank you very much. Excuse me, Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL: That's all right. I just wanted to thank you. In your letter you referred to all of us as being legislative leaders and I think that's the first time I've ever been characterized as a legislative leader, so thanks.

DOROTHY BLANCHE: Well, I took it out of the book all right.