GL Committee Hearing Transcript for 03/11/2014

SENATOR DOYLE: Hi. Good afternoon. I'd like to call the General Law Committee meeting, public hearing, I should say, to order. Before we get into the specifics I just have to give you an announcement in terms of safety.

Note the location of the two exit doors behind you. In the event of emergency please walk quickly to the nearest exit. After exiting the room, go to your right and exit the building by the main entrance or follow the exit signs to one of the other exits.

Please quickly exit the building and follow any instructions by Capital Police. Do not delay, do not return. In the event of a lockdown announcement, please remain in the hearing room.

Thank you, and so we're here for a public hearing. It's a little late. There's no sinister motive. We simply could not get a room at a normal time, so that's why we're here late afternoon.

As many people know, for the first hour we have public officials and agency heads, and then for the second hour on we have members of the public.

We ask all people testifying to keep their comments to three minutes, and then it may sound a little short, but from the capacity of the room, I think everyone wants to try to get home, so it's probably good for everyone.

And three minutes is short, but the committee members have the right to ask questions, so keep in mind you may get additional questions rather than just your three minutes.

So at this point in time we'll start with the public list.

Representative Baram, my co-chair, do you have any comments? He doesn't have any.

Okay. So we'll get right to work.

The first speaker is Representative Joe Aresimowicz. Is the majority leader here? He is not. Okay.

So Representative Patricia Miller? She's up. You're up, Representative.

Then Representative Kim Rose, then Kendall Wiggin, (phonetic) state librarian. If the majority leader comes we'll insert him in.

Good afternoon, Representative.

REP. MILLER: Good afternoon, Representative Baram, Senator Doyle, and members of the General Law Committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for one of the proposals before you this session.

Gift cards are an increasingly popular gift choice. They are a $30 billion a year industry, about 81 percent of consumers, more than one out of eight shoppers, gave a gift card last year.

Shoppers spent an average of $163 on gift cards last holiday season. More and more consumers are choosing gift cards because of their perceived flexibility. They may seem like a perfect gift for a friend or a family member, allow recipients to choose what they want.

Many see gift cards as synonymous as giving cash, but a little less impersonal.

Gift cards are not the same as cash. Many Connecticut consumers are not aware that retailers do not legally have to redeem gift cards for cash, even if there is only a nominal value left on a card, retailers do not and often will not give cash to a consumer -- a customer.

Connecticut consumers could spend $99.99 of a $100 gift card, and a retailer would be within their rights under current law in refusing to return the remaining one-cent value of cash the customer.

House Bill 5473 is a common-sense fix that would simply require an issuer of gift cards upon request to provide a purchaser with a cash refund equal to the value of the remaining value balance of the gift card after a purchase is made.

If House Bill 5473 is enacted, Connecticut would join 10 other states that have enacted similar, friendly protections. In Connecticut, shoppers may redeem gift cards for their cash value.

Representative Baram, Senator Doyle, and members of the General Law Committee, I urge you to support House Bill 5473. Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you, Representative.

Any questions?

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Representative.

REP. MILLER: Good afternoon.

SENATOR WITKOS: I want to give you a scenario, and I would like you to respond to the fact of oftentimes there's many small businesses that would offer gift certificates at their establishments, and say -- I'll use a restaurant for example -- somebody comes in and buys a gift certificate for somebody, $100 value, gives it to them as a gift.

And the person comes in the next day at the beginning of the restaurant's operation, and buys a soda and says I'd like the remainder of my gift certificate in cash, please.

And there is just not the cash available because it's a brand-new day. Many businesses only hold X amount of dollars at the beginning in their cash register, and management hasn't arrived yet.

What do you perceive would happen in that type of a scenario? Do you think it's prudent that this business be held to a CUTPA violation because of that?

REP. MILLER: I think that in today's society we do have checks. And they may not have the cash on hand, but they could, as well, give them a check as well.

And I've gone through these scenarios in my mind because there are different scenarios that you could use, and that's one of them where a person came in the next day and got a soda and they received that money.

But I think that consumers are entitled to spend their money where they want to, and if someone purchases you a gift card, they are assuming that you're going to -- that's the favorite place that you want to go.

But things change. Maybe the restaurant, the food is not that good anymore. Maybe there have been some changes.

And so that person should be entitled to receive that money, the refund.

SENATOR WITKOS: And would you be willing to have an amendment to the bill that would authorize at least a 24-hour period or something to get it to the person, to make arrangements? Because in the scenario I gave you the person -- if you have just an employee there, an hour after they open, take a gas station for example. If somebody got a gift card for a gas station and the shift just changed, they locked the drawer and the safe. So the person that's working at the time, they only have $100 of cash in the drawer, and a person comes in and buys a pack of gum with a $100 gift card, says, "All right. I want the $98 back."

Well, is the cashier responsible for now emptying the drawer. And they still can't -- you know, there's got to be some wiggle room that arrangements have to be made in order to refund that money.

REP. MILLER: Yes. I'm willing to have the conversation.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Mr. Vice-Chairman.

REP. KINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Representative, for your testimony. Would you support a minimum monetary value? Let's say if I received a $100 gift card, and I bought a pack of gum and I request $98 back, and I don't think that's necessarily the purpose of the gift card.

But let's say I was given a -- now a different hypothetical -- a $5 gift card, bought that same $2 pack of gum. So now there's only $3 left on the card, rather than $98.

Would you be opposed to like a $5 minimum?

REP. MILLER: A $5 minimum to return?

REP. KINER: Right. I mean, I guess kind of following up on Senator Witkos' question. If the money is not there, that's a plausible scenario. They should have $3 there, $4. And that might be an inconvenient for somebody to have $4 or $3 left on the card.

REP. MILLER: Right. I'm willing to have the conversation, Representative.

REP. KINER: All right. I think I would support something like that more, but we'll talk about that in the meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

REP. MILLER: May I ask you a question? I'm sorry.

SENATOR DOYLE: Sure. You want to ask him a question?

REP. MILLER: Yes, sorry.

SENATOR DOYLE: If he agrees to answer it, yes.

REP. MILLER: Okay.

SENATOR DOYLE: I'll permit you to ask it. I won't require him --

REP. MILLER: No. No, I just wanted to add something. I'm sorry. That's that representative ending.

SENATOR DOYLE: Sure.

REP. MILLER: So sorry.

SENATOR DOYLE: Yeah, you're not on the floor of the House, but yes.

REP. MILLER: I'm sorry. I apologize.

SENATOR DOYLE: You can -- yes.

REP. MILLER: Just to add on, may I add --

SENATOR DOYLE: Yes, sure. Yes.

REP. MILLER: -- something on to the question? I'm sorry to rephrase that. So $5 in today's society $5 is nothing, so I think that I would be willing to discuss something higher than $5.

REP. KINER: Okay, yeah. That's an arbitrary number.

REP. MILLER: Yeah, okay.

REP. KINER: Maybe anything less than 20.

REP. MILLER: All right. Thank you.

REP. KINER: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: I think you guys can discuss it off-site maybe. Have a discussion in the hall.

Thank you. Any further questions?

All right. Chairman Baram.

REP. BARAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Thank you.

REP. BARAM: I wanted to explain perhaps the reason you were asked some of the questions. When I returned to my office just before this hearing, there was a UPS package from the Retail Card/Gift Card Association.

And they had some information that should have just been distributed, so you would not have had a chance to see it. And in it they indicated there were 12 states or so that had such statutes refunding cash.

Some of the states were as low as $1, some were $5. And I looked at it quickly. I think the highest was California with $10. So that may be the reason why you're being asked these questions, you know, how you felt about having a law that said if your gift card only had let's say less than $10, you could, you know, get a refund and get your -- and cash it in.

I think the impetus for those questions was the result of that literature that was sent to us just a few minutes ago.

REP. MILLER: Thank you, Representative. I understand the questions because I found that in my research as well. And I said there are 10 states that have the same type or similar gift card protection.

So I certainly understand where the line of questioning is coming from. Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Rep. Rutigliano.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Representative.

REP. MILLER: Good afternoon.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: One of the issues, as a seller of gift cards, one of the issues that I have is we donate a tremendous amount of gift cards to just about any organization that will ask throughout the year.

In my system, POS system, which is rather advanced, I have no way to discern when that customer brings that card back whether it was a donation or if it was paid for by cash.

So this bill as written opens me up to sort of donating twice. I've already donated a gift card, and now I'm actually refunding hard cash.

So I don't really know if there's a question there. I might just be making a comment. But it is a real and legitimate concern. I do literally a thousand donations a year throughout the year.

So my other point might be there are times in life where people buy gift cards because they don't want to give out cash to somebody. You know, maybe you have a teen or where you're going to give them a gas card instead of cash or a stop and shop card to somebody who you want to buy groceries.

I would just hope that you keep that in mind as we deliberate this issue that it might not be as clear-cut as it may appear to be.

And thank you for your time, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. MILLER: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you, Representative.

REP. MILLER: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR DOYLE: Our next speaker -- is the majority leader here?

REP. BARAM: No, he's not.

SENATOR DOYLE: Okay.

The next speaker -- is Representative Kim Rose here?

Okay. Representative Kim Rose? She's not here.

Kendall Wiggin, state librarian? Mr. Wiggin.

KENDALL WIGGIN: Good afternoon, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, committee members.

My name is Kendall Wiggin. I'm the state librarian. I'm here to speak in support of Raised Bill 5477. I'd also like to thank the committee for raising the bill. I've submitted testimony and I won't read it but I'll just point out that this legislation comes out of a report that was a result of the work this committee did in passing Special Act 13-10, which was AN ACT CONCERNING E-BOOKS.

And I know it was a big topic at this committee last year. And I feel that this legislation is the first step in helping us read some of the suggestions and recommendations in that report, specifically making clear that the State Library Board would have the authority to pursue the development of an e-book platform.

Over the years the legislature has entrusted the state library with responsible for many statewide library projects. I think we've done well with those. I think we would do well with this.

I do need to point out that it will take some funding to actually implement this, and currently there is no funding in the governor's current budget.

But this is, as I say, a first step. And it would help us move forward with this initiative. So you have my written testimony. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

Thank you very much.

KENDALL WIGGIN: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Next speaker, Representative Sear. Is Representative Sear here? Yes, he is.

REP. SEAR: Thank you, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram and other distinguished members of the General Law Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Raised Bill 5477, AN ACT CONCERNING A STATEWIDE PLATFORM FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRONIC BOOKS.

Now I'll speak from the heart. Last year I did introduce a bill that you're all aware of we worked together on that sought to remedy a situation that exists in the state in terms of availability of e-books to state libraries. And from a secondary basis, the cost of what those books were.

It was all over the map and so we worked that bill through the process. I pursued vigorously a enforcement type of legislation, which basically would say if you sold to the public on the retail end, e-books in the state you would have to provide those to the libraries at a similar cost.

There was pushback on that in terms of you know, free market and commerce concerns. There were also legal concerns that that was a First Amendment right that was being infringed upon, et cetera.

Where we ended up at the end of last year session, and we did vote through, was a study bill. And at first I was a little nervous that that study bill might have been just the way to take this concept and move it to the side and kind of put it on a side burner, but that didn't happen.

It was the Office of Consumer Protection that was commissioned with putting the study together. They worked very hard and very diligently and came up with a very comprehensive study that didn't even just address the e-book availability, but cast a whole larger picture of digital content at libraries, and what their role is in today's society.

And they did make some recommendations at the end of their report. I will quote just a couple references from that report to put this in context. "To fully appreciate why library exclusion for meaningful participation in the e-book market is problematic, it is necessary to understand the important role of libraries and their communities and how that role is becoming more vital as digital content rapidly seeps into virtually every aspect of daily life.

As information becomes digitized and moves online. The role of the library is becoming more important, not less important. And as a summary, the importance of having eBooks at libraries is not simply a matter of convenience or consumer preference.

Excluding libraries from popular e-content will further the digital divide as those unable to afford to buy books will be excluded from a wide range of e-content, and of a delivery platform that is increasingly popular."

The recommendations that OCP made -- I was a little frustrated when I first saw those because they took right off the table the concept of some sort of enforcement action. The attorney general's office had been involved in this study and possibly they had concerns about possible lawsuits coming down the road.

But the more I looked into it the suggestions they did have were productive and constructive and that brings us to where we are today. One of the recommendations was setting up a statewide platform for e-book, not just purchasing, and not just the terms of the cost of the purchasing, but one of the concerns in this whole kind of fluctuating e-book library situation is the file format of the eBooks, having a common platform that libraries can use, having some agreement between publishers and libraries on what would work best for both.

And we had a symposium a couple weeks ago at the University of Hartford. The publishers were there. The libraries were there. They're all working together. This isn't a win/lose situation, and I think we're at a good spot in terms of that being the best remedy or solution to kind of move all of our libraries forward and work with publishers to set up the terms, the pricing, the accessibility and, you know, the file format so that a couple years from now we'll all be working together on the same page.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Thank you, Representative.

REP. SEAR: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. A good bill. The last few years we've been working in bipartisan fashion. Thank you.

REP. SEAR: And thank you all.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker is Representative Melissa Ziobron. She's here?

REP. ZIOBRON Good afternoon, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, Senator Witkos, Representative Carter and esteemed members of the General Law Committee.

I'm submitting testimony today in support of House Bill 5476, AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF LEGALIZING INDUSTRIAL HEMP.

The use of hemp far predates the use of cotton or other materials. In fact, the earliest-known woven fabric was hemp and it dates back to 7000 B.C.

Up until the 1800s, some estimate that 80 percent of all textiles and fabrics were made of hemp fibers. In the ancient times it was used to create fabric, paper and oil. So why do we have such an aversion to using this material? Simply put, it is misinformation that is stopping us from using this highly-versatile and sustainable resource.

There are some who estimate that 25,000 items could be manufactured from hemp. Deforestation is occurring around 3 percent per year, and hemp is a far superior resource, since it can be grown to maturity in 100 days.

These facts, along with the potential at creating thousands of U.S. jobs, should warrant the study from DECD that this bill proposes.

Since the war on drugs began, many folks confused hemp with marijuana. According to some of the research that I've done, hemp contains such a low level of THC that it would take many football fields of use to render the same effect as marijuana.

While the plant genus is the same, in fact, if it is grown next to each other it would render the marijuana sterile. In addition, research is warranted regarding the new Federal Farm Bill, which allows colleges and universities to start pilot programs for growing hemp.

While it appears that 10 states fit this guideline, part of the DECD due diligence should deal with the federal and state implications as well.

There is growing demand for hemp products in the United States, and the irony is that we cannot produce the raw material here to develop those and help our local businesses. Instead, they are imported from all over the world.

This bill would investigate the feasibility of a product that has been around for thousands of years that has proven to be more sustainable than even wood, is 100 percent versatile and has a proven market. So what are we waiting for?

I brought with me 15 interesting facts that I think you might find interesting as well regarding hemp and its history in the United States.

All school books were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s. It was legal to pay taxes with hemp in American from 1631 until the early 1800s. Refusing to grow hemp in America during the 17th and 18th centuries was actually against the law. I guess you could be jailed in Virginia if you refused.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers grew hemp. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America, and it processed hemp.

Also the War of 1812 was fought over hemp.

For thousands of years, 90 percent of all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp, and the word canvas comes from the Middle English word canevus, which comes from the Latin word cannabis.

Eighty percent of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets were made from hemp until the 1820s with the introduction of the cotton gin. The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross's flag, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp.

The first crop grown in many states was hemp. In 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky, producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th century. Oldest-known records of hemp farming go back 5,000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.

Rembrandt, Van Gogh, as well as early canvas paintings were principally painted on hemp linen. I'll wrap it up.

And there's a few others. If you're interested I'll email them to you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you very much.

REP. : But I bring that to your attention because it was very interesting to me, the history of what we're talking about.

SENATOR DOYLE: Sure.

REP. ZIOBRON: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

Representative, are there other states that produce hemp as an industrial base?

REP. ZIOBRON: In the research that I've done, I guess there's 10 other states that are allowed to do it, that have the law for industrialization. And according to the latest farm bill that was just passed, colleges and private universities could do a pilot program but only with those 10 states that the industrialization in place.

SENATOR WITKOS: And are you aware, do they have any security procedures, where those will be grown, like indoors only or anything like that?

REP. ZIOBRON: I don't have all that data. It sounds from the bill that DECD would have to do a lot of that study and due diligence in the bill, which is only for a study. But I'm sure it's -- you know, we're talking about industrial use.

I'm envisioning empty warehouses in the State of Connecticut and other places that could be using hydroponics and other ways to cultivate that.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you. Representative Altobello.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Representative.

I noticed you've got two different departments that would be coordinating this study, but there's one that's left out, the Department of Agriculture. Is there any reason why you left them out or if we went forward this bill --

REP. ZIOBRON: No. I think the Department of Ag should definitely be included if the bill goes forward.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Because you're talking about growing it here as well?

REP. ZIOBRON: Yeah, absolutely.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Okay.

REP. ZIOBRON: No, I think that's a very valid point.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Thank you, Madame.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions?

Representative Rutigliano.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Representative. What does it look like?

REP. ZIOBRON: Well, it's interesting because it's very tall. It grows to be about 18 feet tall and the stem is very woody. It doesn't look like marijuana, which is --

REP. RUTIGLIANO: It doesn't look anything -- it's completely different?

REP. ZIOBRON: No, it looks similar, but it's so tall and woody. Marijuana -- and I'm not an expert in that field but let me just be clear. The difference is when I'm doing my research is that hemp is the plant itself and the fiber of the whole plant is what's used.

And marijuana, I believe, it's just the flower that is used.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Are they two completely different species?

REP. ZIOBRON: Just like the genus for the dog family, you know, there's a difference between a Chihuahua and a wolf, but they have the same scientific origin. This would be the same. The same plant species, but if you were actually to grow it next to each other, it would take away all the potency of the marijuana.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: And you would be able to tell the difference between the two if they were grown next to each other.

REP. ZIOBRON: Well, I think that's -- a lot of people assume that you can't tell the difference, and I think that's part of the myth behind it. I think, you know, you certainly can tell the difference in a lot of ways.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

Representative Carter.

REP. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So I just want to make sure I understand this. Is there still some THC in the product, in hemp?

REP. ZIOBRON: Yeah. I guess it's less than 1 percent. From what I have been reading about it, it's so small that you would literally die of carbon monoxide poisoning if you attempted to use it in the same way as marijuana is used.

And when they import it, I guess, from other countries, they do test it for that, and if it's above a certain level it's not brought into the United States.

REP. CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Are there any further questions? Are we all set? Okay. Thank you.

REP. ZIOBRON: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker, David Waskowicz.

Is David Waskowicz here?

DAVID WASKOWICZ: Good afternoon, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, and members of the General Law Committee.

David Waskowicz, Chairman of the Fire Protection Sprinkler System Work Examining Board for the State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection.

I also have two other board chairmen, Ed Fusco and Bob Barrio. I'll let them introduce themselves.

ED FUSCO: My name is Ed Fusco, the Auto and (inaudible) chairman.

ROBERT BARRIO: My name is Robert Barrio, chairman of the Heating Cooling Sheet Metal Board.

DAVID WASKOWICZ: I want to ask for your support of Senate Bill 412 for the enforcement of certain occupational licensing laws. This bill would benefit the public and the consumers in the State of Connecticut, with the addition of the cease work order. It's in the proposed legislation.

The addition of the cease work order stops the violator and the violation when unlicensed individuals are determined to be doing work in the State of Connecticut. The existing language needs to be strengthened, and the proposed changes involve the appropriate boards in the Department of Consumer Protection with conjunction -- in conjunction with the Commissioner of Consumer Protection.

I believe the citizens and the consumers would be better served with the passage of S.B. 412. I thank you for your time and your consideration. I wanted to keep it brief so the other two gentlemen can speak.

SENATOR DOYLE: Okay. Yeah, please keep it brief, because there are a lot of people. You want to make some brief comments?

ED FUSCO: Thank you.

Sorry about that. Yes, my name is Ed Fusco, like I said, and I concur with Dave. I support the bill heartily. We've been working on this bill for a while and I think it is definitely going to help the consumer.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

ROBERT BARRIO: Thank you. On this bill it's been proposed -- Raised Bill 412 -- the entire Heating Cooling Board, all of the board members of the Department of Consumer Protection 100 percent are for this bill.

We just feel that there's a lack of enforcement, either through budget contradictions, not enough inspectors, but thousands and thousands of dollars in fines had to go on the loss. There's no enforcement that we can see of. They do the best they can but they don't have an awful lot of people.

Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

Under this bill, is there any time where the commissioner would differ from the examining board's decision on whether a violation occurred or not in your experiences?

DAVID WASKOWICZ: I would say it's a possibility. I mean, yeah, it's possible, but I could speak for the Fire Protection Board. It's comprised of two licensed journeymen, two licensed contractors, state fire marshal, local fire marshal, and three public members.

So then there is a hearing or something comes before the board, the people there will know the ramifications and the seriousness of the offense. And I would like to believe it would be, you know, in conjunction with the commissioner.

SENATOR WITKOS: 'Cause it gives you the ability to either do it jointly or separately, and that's why I was wondering if most of the times it's done it's unanimous I guess, for lack of better words, and decisions.

DAVID WASKOWICZ: The reason this proposal came up was back in '07 the word and/or and that small word, and/or kind of eliminated -- the commissioner could rule without the board. This language would put it back into the board.

Like I say, when, you know, you have the board's comprised of the people that are familiar with the type of work that's being done and the seriousness of the offense, you know, hearing the case, if it goes to --

SENATOR WITKOS: Well, that's the premise of my question is because are we doing this because we didn't necessarily agree with the position of the commissioner more often than not? And that's why we wanted this?

DAVID WASKOWICZ: No.

SENATOR WITKOS: Or is it because just to clarify the language.

DAVID WASKOWICZ: No, Senator.

I've been on the board for 17 years, and there hasn't been a hearing before the board since '07.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay.

DAVID WASKOWICZ: And the streamlined things, it's gone to what they call an "assurance of voluntary compliance" where the offender or the violator comes in, sits down with the commissioner, and the board is not hearing the case and I think it's, you know, it should --

SENATOR WITKOS: And one of the things that somebody mentioned, there was a staffing issue. This doesn't address the staffing issue, I don't think. It says that if you render a decision and you found that the person is in violation, then a cease order work order will be delivered as soon as practical.

And who would be doing that work of delivering the cease order?

DAVID WASKOWICZ: I believe ultimately it would come out of the commissioner's off-, or his delegative representative. That's the way I interpret the bill.

SENATOR WITKOS: And how is that done now if somebody has a stop --

DAVID WASKOWICZ: There is no stop order. There is no -- the violator doesn't, you know, the inspector shows up, observes a violation, the person is asked to leave the job. I mean, you know, there's no guarantee that that person can't show up again tomorrow and continue working illegally in the State of Connecticut.

SENATOR WITKOS: And is there -- under the current statutes is there a fine involved that can be levied either by the commissioner or by the examining board or a license revocation?

I mean, basically we're doing -- we're giving -- granting authority to issue a cease and desist order basically from continuing the work based on the violation.

SENATOR WITKOS: What happens after that?

DAVID WASKOWICZ: Well, there would be a hearing. The language was adopted -- the Department of Labor has that ability right now when they find a violator out there to cease and work order issued, cease and desist order.

And this would just extend it to the Department of Consumer protection if they found a violation of licensing laws.

I hope that answered -- I don't know if that answered --

SENATOR WITKOS: Yes. Both entities now will have the ability -- the Department of Labor and through the Department of Consumer Protection -- the ability to issue a cease order?

DAVID WASKOWICZ: It's two different departments.

SENATOR WITKOS: Right.

DAVID WASKOWICZ: The licensing is covered by Consumer Protection. The wage and insurance, when they find a fraud over there in the Department of Labor, that's a different entity. So this would give Consumer Protection basically the same power to have a cease work order issued.

SENATOR WITKOS: How often do we have issues like this or hearings where we have to bring somebody in to have a hearing, whether -- regardless of what the outcome is. Is that often?

DAVID WASKOWICZ: As I stated, we haven't -- on the Fire Protection Board we haven't had a hearing since '07. Prior to that we had --

SENATOR DOYLE: (Inaudible).

DAVID WASKOWICZ: We've been so far out of the loop we're literally ignored.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay.

DAVID WASKOWICZ: A perfect example, sir, we recently had a board meeting. Gentlemen will come in with notarized statements that I've been employed for this employer for three or four years. He feels justified that I can sit for my S-2 exam.

Well, he's never been registered as an apprentice, and he's never been to school. And there's a $1,500 fine. We refer that over to Consumer Protection for enforcement, and they'll give a $250 civil penalty or they'll dismiss it or something.

The enforcement at best is extremely lax, and without bloating, there's probably 2 -- $250,000 a year in fines just with that at our board meetings that's just gone.

And that's just our board. That's not the plumbing board, the sprinkler board.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Are there any further questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much, gentlemen.

DAVID WASKOWICZ: Thank you for your time.

SENATOR DOYLE: All right. We're going to move onto the public, and if Representative Aresimowicz or Representative Rose comes in, they'll jump in.

So going to the public, the first speaker is Michael Lynch, then Joseph Colacci and David Jagrosse.

Again, please keep your comments to three minutes, and the committee can ask you questions.

So Michael Lynch.

MICHAEL LYNCH: Good evening, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, and members of the committee.

My name is Michael Lynch, Jr. I'm the president of Lynch Toyota in Manchester, Connecticut. I'm a third genera -- it's a third-generation, family-owned auto dealership with 110 employees.

I'm also the chairperson of the Connecticut Automotive Retailers Association, which is a not-for-profit trade association that represents the interests of the 250 licensed franchised auto dealers and their 12,000 employees in our state.

And I'm here to testify in opposition to Raised Bill 375, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSUMER RENTAL CAR COST REIMBURSEMENT AND USED MOTOR VEHICLE WARRANTIES.

This legislation mandates that all used car warranties required by law include coverage for the cost of a rental car for any vehicle sold by a dealer in this state covering the times when a vehicle might be in the shop for warranty work.

This will require all consumers to pay for the cost of a rental car and the price of a used car. This is an anti-consumer choice. It mandates an expensive option that many consumers may not need or want.

It is anti-consumer as it will make many lower-end used vehicles less and less affordable to consumers. It violates the principles of the transparency and the sales process by statutorily bearing the cost of a rental car in the price of car.

As a licensed franchise dealer in this state, I, along with 250 of my colleagues, sell both new and used cars. There are approximately 1,600 licensed used-car dealer only dealers in the state as well.

Last year Connecticut dealers sold approximately 337,000 vehicles or 40 percent of all vehicle sales. Conservatively, CARA estimates that half of all dealer sales are for used cars.

I tell you this because as a used-car dealer I know that many consumers are looking to purchase affordable transportation. They do not want extras added into the price. In fact, state and federal laws go to great lengths to protect used-car consumers from paying for options they did not ask for.

Connecticut and federal law does not allow dealers to load up the price of a car with extra products like gap coverage, vignettes, extended-service contract or other after-market items unless the consumer wants these products.

These laws are designed to ensure transparency in the process and give the consumer a choice of price and options in the used-vehicle market.

There are many options a dealer may offer to customers. Gap coverage, if it's a good product. If you get in an accident and your vehicle is totaled and you still owe money on the car loan over and above what the insurance covered, then gap will pay the rest of the car off.

Some customers ask to purchase this product, and many customers do not. And they want an affordable payment and don't want the cost of the gap coverage in the price of the car.

Extended-service contracts are another example available to consumers for both new and used cars. Some consumers agree to buy these products, but dealers are prohibited from including such coverage in the price of a car without the consumer's consent.

In fact, some extended service contracts will cover the cost of a rental car while a car is in the shop.

There's a couple of other -- in the interest of time -- examples in here, and I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to offer you my views and I think that these views are the same as many of my loyal customers.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

MICHAEL LYNCH: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: All right. In the interest of time, I'm going to invite up the next three people because they're all from the same entity.

Josephine Colacci, David Jagrosse and Peter Daigle, if you'll all come up together maybe, maybe we can kind of consolidate your comments. All on Senate Bill 300, all in favor of Senate Bill 300. Thank you.

PETER DAIGLE: Thank you.

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram and distinguished members of the Joint General Law Committee.

My name is Josephine Colacci, and I'm the government affairs director for the International Association of Healthcare Central Service Material Management.

IAHCSMM represents approximately 22,000 central service technicians in the U.S. abroad, with approximately 145 technicians in Connecticut.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are around 520 of these technicians in Connecticut. I appear before you today to speak in support of Senate Bill 300, which would require certification of central service technicians in continuing education credits.

One example as to why this legislation is important can be found in an example of a Westport plastic surgeon who was cited by DPH twice in 2011 and 2012 for serious lapses of instrumentation sterilization procedures.

The rest of my testimony I've submitted, and I'd like to spend the rest of my time pointing out in the language of the bill we will be asking for a committee substitute because the bill as introduced was introduced incorrectly.

So I'm going to go through those changes if you happen to have the language in front of you and explain why we're making these changes or asking for these changes.

In the definition section for central service technician, "prepares, stores and distributes" would be deleted from the definition because the Hospital Association believes that other types of technicians would be restricted from wheeling carts down hallways that actually have instrumentation on those carts.

So we have agreed to delete that language. Also Section 1(a)(B), deleting student and intern language because these technicians do not ever act as students or interns in hospitals or ASE so it's just not needed.

We've removed an -- we moved an exception in that clause to Clause F, which states that healthcare professionals that are acting within their scope of practice will not have to become certified. Section 1(b)(1), this was general language that talked about certification in general, and it did not name the two credentials.

These two organizations have many different types of certifications, so by putting in general certification language it did not identify the correct credentials, so we put in the correct credential language.

Also we named the organization to do the certifying because as you will see in this clause also, it says acceptable by the Commissioner of Public Health.

DPH does not want to enforce this bill, so we've deleted that language and in place we named the credentialing organizations because the Hospital Association also felt --

SENATOR DOYLE: This is all in your written testimony?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Yes.

SENATOR DOYLE: Yes, okay.

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: It is. I could keep going through the changes or --

SENATOR DOYLE: Okay. Why don't we -- you two gentlemen try to --

DAVID JAGROSSE: Hi. I'm David Jagrosse. I'm the president elect for the organization IAHCSMM. We use the shorthand for it. And I'm past president of the Connecticut Chapter for Centrals (inaudible) and I'm a manager at Middlesex Hospital here in Connecticut.

And I'm obviously in here in support of the bill. Our profession, as you may or may not know, goes through rapid changes. We process robotic instrumentation, total hip instrumentation, very complex and sophisticated devices which the technicians that are hired today, they can be hired off the street with no experience. We're looking for this support because we believe we need to keep up with this changing technology, and that's essentially the core of the bill.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

PETER DAIGLE: Good afternoon. I'm Peter Daigle. I work at the University of Connecticut Health Center, supervisor of the Central (inaudible) Supply.

This bill is very important because there's a ton of stories I could tell you about incidents that happened in the central service department that when people were not certified they didn't know what to do.

Certification is very important for the hospital and for the patient safety, patient health, and employee safety and employee health. Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

Representative Altobello.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To Ms. Colacci. In your requested changes in the bill, you deleted language acceptable by the Commissioner of Public Health, the Department of Public Health does not want to enforce this bill, but yet it has all to do with healthcare. And we're more like pipefitters and sheet metal people.

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: So why am I before your committee?

REP. ALTOBELLO: Yes. Why are you in front of the Public Health Committee with this bill?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: It's a very good question.

Public Health actually sent a letter to the General Law Committee and their determination was we were a better fit under General Law.

SENATOR DOYLE: It's an odd situation, Representative.

Any further questions?

REP. BARAM: I'll even it out.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE COURT: Representative Orange, did you have a question?

REP. ORANGE: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just agree that something should be done because to make sure that those are being sterilized properly. I've been to Middlesex Hospital. I believe you're the owner of my gall bladder.

DAVID JAGROSSE: We're not allowed to return it to you.

REP. ORANGE: You know, my husband goes to UConn weekly, and so two good hospitals there. But I'm also kind of miffed that this isn't in front of the Public Health Committee either. I'm sure that as it travels it would have to hit there at some point in time, and for the Department of Public Health to not want to oversee this just baffles me as well.

I know that all of our agencies are basically overwhelmed, but this is an important issue.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you, Representative.

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

Are you aware -- were usable medical instruments defined or devices defined in our statutes? Because you didn't have a definition of that here, and I'm just wondering if you're aware if it's defined in our state statutes anywhere.

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: I'm not.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. You testified there was 500 and how many currently?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: 520.

SENATOR WITKOS: 520 CSTs.

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Those are 2012 numbers too.

SENATOR WITKOS: Now, how many -- there's a provision in the bill under Section 1(2) that says if you have -- if you're doing the work of a central service tech prior to October of this year, you can continue doing that as long as you go get your certification.

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: It's a grandfathering clause, and not to interrupt you but that is another huge change in the bill. So it was supposed to grandfather everyone in up and to the effective date. The reasoning for that is the hospitals in the unions are worried about people losing jobs.

So we grandfathered everyone in. Those people that are grandfathered would still be required to do the continuing ed, but they would not be required to take the certification exam.

SENATOR WITKOS: How many people are we talking about there? I mean, we have 520 that are currently certified. How many people are not certified that are doing the job, estimate?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: I have no idea. I don't even know if I could give you an estimate. I mean, could --

DAVID JAGROSSE: Excuse me. An average hospital of Peter and my hospital size is usually about 20 employees per hospital. On the larger hospitals it certainly can go a lot higher for Connecticut.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. So it's not insurmountable where you'd be able to make sure because we put a deadline in there that they have to have it done by that -- if all these people need certification there's going to be enough room in classes or somewhere to take to get the certification.

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Oh, this is another -- sorry to interrupt you again. But there's another change in the bill because this clause didn't make it into the introduced draft. And hospitals will be allowed to hire -- hospitals and AFCs can hire uncertified techs as long as those techs are certified within 18 months.

I spoke to the Hospital Association lobbyists today. we may change that 18 months to two years.

SENATOR WITKOS: And is there -- is this a national certification or is this something that Connecticut's starting?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: The first state to do it was New Jersey. New York just passed a very similar bill last year. I have a bill pending in Massachusetts right now and one that will be introduced very soon in Pennsylvania.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR DOYLE: Just to clarify, you'll make recommendations to the committees to amend the bill?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Absolutely, yes.

SENATOR DOYLE: Yes, thank you.

All right. Chairman Baram.

REP. BARAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make sure that your suggested changes get to our legal counsel so we can take a look at those. And also, just by way of explanation, even though the Health Committee sort of passed this off on us, we thought it was significant enough of an issue that we should take it up.

And there was some nexus with the Department of Consumer Protection in terms of the certification. So I assume that when these techs take their courses and get certified, it has to be submitted to some agency just at least for the record?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: It goes to the certifying bodies. Yes, and I would like to say thank you very much to the committee for bringing up this bill.

REP. BARAM: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Representative Carter.

REP. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Two questions. First off, you were talking about the technicians. They actually work on this equipment and they take it apart and clean it?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Yes. They can -- they can --

DAVID JAGROSSE: Yes. It's reusable medical instrumentation, so some the devices are used in surgery so they have debris and blood and soil on them so they need to be reprocessed in a decontamination room.

And some of the devices require disassembly for cleaning, and then reassembly back on the assembly side for sterilization. It's a multi-step process.

REP. CARTER: Will this -- actually three questions then -- will this also affect small surgical centers that are not owned by hospitals?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Under the statute -- and I would have to look at the statute that we pulled. It's supposed to fall for ASDs. Not office-based surgeries.

REP. CARTER: I understand most office-based surgeries probably use equipment that's pre-sterilized and it's packaged and brought in is the way I understand it.

DAVID JAGROSSE: Not necessarily.

REP. CARTER: Not necessarily?

DAVID JAGROSSE: A lot of dental offices and small doctor offices have table-top autoclaves and process their instruments in-house.

REP. CARTER: Okay. last question is the availability of classes to go out and actually have this kind of training. Are there places in Connecticut where they can easily get this, and how much?

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Yes. So that's a wide range. You actually have several community colleges that offer courses. They can be as long as 15 weeks, three to five weeks. People can self study for the course. It could take you as long as a month to do it or a year or two years, depending on how long you wanted to take.

The cost can range from as little as $125 to as much as $1,400. And then there is Purdue University online has an online program, which is outside of the state, but you have several community colleges that do it to.

REP. CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you.

DAVID JAGROSSE: Thank you again.

JOSEPHINE COLACCI: Thank you very much.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker is Representative Aresimowicz.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Chairman Baram, Chairman Doyle, good afternoon, committee members.

Thank you very much. I see you have a packed house here today, so maybe you should have switched with Labor. They've got a lot of open space up there.

SENATOR DOYLE: We will be talking later I think in terms of how these rooms work. We were hoping to start at 1:00 but we couldn't get a room. That's why we're so late.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Oh.

SENATOR DOYLE: And I think to be honest some of these rooms aren't being used. So maybe later on we'll speak to leadership about that issue.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Senator Doyle, stop up and we'll have a discussion about this.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you. Thank you very much.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: After the JF deadline, though, okay?

Members of the committee, Chairmen, I'm here to testify on behalf of two bills that came to me probably in the same very fashion that many of the bills that you introduced here. It was constituents reaching out to me in areas of concern for them.

The first being House Bill 5491, AN ACT CONCERNING CUSTOMER SALES AND SERVICE CALLS MADE FROM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

This is a constituent issue that came to me. A lot of things are happening in this country, one of which is outsourcing is taking place to either for efficiency in some terms. Some say simply just to cut costs.

But it is putting our safety and security of our residents in the State of Connecticut at risk. Especially when we're talking about secure information, Social Security numbers, bank accounts.

We get the phone calls. We hear from folks all the time that their information has gotten out there in way, shape or form.

So what this bill essentially does is we're not here to say you can't outsource for whatever reason you decide, but what it does say is that within the first 30 seconds of the call, if you're requesting certain information, sensitive information, then at least you should tell them where you're calling from and give them the opportunity to request to speak with somebody in the United States for their own safety and security.

This is a bill that just makes sense. I think it's time for it, and affording the option. We're not making a judgment here. We're just saying safety and security. If they feel that strongly about it, to go ahead and offer them the opportunity.

The other one is another bill that's Senate Bill 412, AN ACT CONCERNING ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE STATUTES.

This was a young lady from my district that happens to run a large contracting company that was saying that we just simply we're not getting the enforcement that we needed on the work sites. That in some cases complaints were being sent forward that were never heard by the boards.

And I think you heard some of that testimony earlier. And in other cases, nobody would ever even show up out to the site to find out whether trade work, licensed trade work within the State of Connecticut, was being performed by non-licensed folks. Whether it be a journeyman, apprentices, people just weren't checking the paperwork.

So that onto itself is a problem, but I think what the bigger problem was is because of that companies from outside of the State of Connecticut that were very used to the idea of not playing by the rules were coming into the State of Connecticut and actually being the lower bidder on some jobs.

So we were actually displacing or disqualifying some of our very own contractors that were, for all intents and purposes, playing by the rules and doing the right thing, with folks that weren't.

So this bill is the effort of a committee. We formed a committee. We opened it up to all trades people, whether it be union, non-union, and told them to sit down and really look at the issue and come up with a bill that made sense.

It is my understanding that the bill before you today that you're having in the public hearing is the final product of those efforts. And it requires increased enforcement, it puts a greater role with the boards in working with the commissioner.

So we're not replacing one with the other, it's either or. And it provides the opportunity for the stop work orders. We've seen those with the Department of Labor. They have an effect at curtailing bad behavior.

We all opened up the paper just a couple weeks ago and saw what was going on up at UConn. And I think we need to take more progressive steps like that. if you're going to dance around Connecticut laws, there has to be swift and severe repercussions, especially in this area.

God forbid we had a situation to where we had unlicensed folks on a job that was found out later simply because an accident happened. I don't think anybody in this building or any of the state agencies or any of the trades, for that matter, would live with themselves knowing that people were hurt by us not doing all that we could.

So both of the bills are pretty simple. I really appreciate the committee raising the bills, drawing them up, and if you have any questions I'll attempt to answer them. One of them is really not my area of expertise but I'll try.

SENATOR DOYLE: Sure. Thank you, sir.

I'll just make a quick comment about the Senate Bill 412. In the past several years this committee has JFed a bill out and it struggled, so we're glad to have your muscle behind it.

There was -- in the past there were criticisms because it's always a question of they didn't want to invest money in more, you know, employees. We were arguing you can justify it by getting more fines.

So having you behind it we're hoping will help the -- I think it was a bipartisan bill that passed several years. So with you behind it we appreciate that.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Well, and to your credit, Senator Doyle and Representative Baram, you both actually stopped in the little task force meetings that were happening and sat in for them. So you know how the process worked.

And essentially when I walked away from that process saying so do we have an agreement? Everybody in this room is in agreement. And all the head nodding occurred, I said okay, I think we have a bill.

And I know we've tweaked it, especially with the help of your LCO attorney, to get it to the point that it's at now.

SENATOR DOYLE: Good. Thank you.

Any questions?

Representative Altobello.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Majority Leader Aresimowicz.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Good afternoon, Deputy Speaker Altobello.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Well, we got that out of the way.

Now, in your bill concerning the customer sales and service calls made from outside of the United States and America, it calls for a Connecticut company that engages someone outside the country to put into their contract with that entity the following provisions.

What's the enforcement here? I don't see any penalties, I don't see -- it's going to be very difficult to get someone, say in Canada, to say the things that need to be said in the first 30 seconds. You may be monitored. You may have the -- if I asked for sensitive information, it may request that someone -- and you speak with someone in the United States and all that.

But what's the -- I mean, we're not going to be able to enforce that, obviously. The only hook we have is the Connecticut company, and to try to force them to first of all have it in their contract and secondly of course, to make sure that whomever is doing this service for them follows the contract.

So what's the penalty here? you got some --

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: So our initial thought process with this would be the consumer can file a complaint through DCP and DCP would go ahead and look into the matter and then seek any penalties or appropriate action taken after that. So it would be a complaint to DCP.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Did you have any recommendations regarding the penalty page?

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: So as requested by other leadership, I guess we should say, we're trying to have the bills be as complete in the process on the way out so we've been working with your LCO attorney but that was our initial indication of what we'd do is just follow the DCP, DCP would then take action.

So Buddy, if you'd like more information I'd be happy to get it to you but that's the initial initiation.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Okay. Thanks. Just worried about enforcement going forward, the idea is certainly a good one.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Well, especially with foreign companies. I think we'd all readily admit that the enforcement would be very difficult if not impossible. We would have the remedy on the Connecticut company.

REP. ALTOBELLO: So we need to think about that some more. Thank you very much, sir.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Sure.

REP. ALTOBELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: Yes, welcome to the meeting.

Looking at this, the one concern that I have is I can understand with the license trades and the license trades. None of us want someone who is not an electrician doing electrical work.

But on any large job site, there are a variety of licensed trades and non-licensed trades. Speaking from the general contractor's point of view, I'm very concerned that this can be used in disputes between trades as to who is responsible for it so a cease work order is issued, the job stops while the two unions are arguing about who gets to do the work.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Why does it have to be unions?

REP. AMAN: While the state -- since most of these jobs are either done by the state or the municipalities, the taxpayers are paying the cost of the delay. And I'm wondering how this bill addresses that issue.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: So we do have some S language. We've been reacting to some of the concerns that have been raised by folks, both in house and externally. As I said, it was a bipartisan bill.

So we do have some S language that should clear that up. I believe the chairs are in possession of it, and we've been working with the LCO on that also, which would take that out of the factor. It would only be covering the licensed trades.

REP. AMAN: The other question tied in directly to that is I don't see any time limits for decisions to be made. And again my concern of a job being stopped while a decision is being determined and while government may say, "Oh, we responded in three weeks. I don't see what the problem is."

A job that shuts down in November for three weeks is a major problem. And again does the S language address that issue or --

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: So the S language doesn't address the timelines. Obviously if you get the stop work order you have the -- I think it's the 10 days to appeal it over to the commissioner and then the commissioner ultimately could bring it to the board.

It's my understanding that the boards currently meet once a month on average, or they have the potential to meet once a month.

I think that's an excellent point and, you know, we may want to put into language some function for an emergency meeting or at least getting a quorum of emergency meeting. But I understand the timeline issue.

REP. AMAN: Thank you very much.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: No problem.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Any further questions?

Representative Rovero.

REP. ROVERO: Thank you for your testimony. I have a question, but not pertaining to either one of these.

(Inaudible) tell me you have pull around this building, and I wonder if it's possible you ask them not to shut the heat off at 4:30. Thank you very much.

SENATOR DOYLE: Representative Rovero, it's part of our cost-saving message.

SENATOR DOYLE: Any further questions?

Representative Carter.

REP. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The one quick question I had was could you tell us a little more about the constituent who requested the service calls outside the United States? I mean, were they a victim of identity theft or something?

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Yes. So it actually came from two different areas. One happened to be one of the folks that were being laid off or in the process of being laid off from Northeast Utilities. And they were just talking general sense of their opinion about sourcing and one of the concerns that they had.

In this particular case with Northeast Utilities it was IT. So they were very concerned about the overall electrical infrastructure of the state and security.

The other one was exactly, it was an identity theft. The constituent's story goes that she really couldn't understand the person on the other side of the line, not least of which, but she wasn't clear where they were calling from.

They asked the correct questions, and she actually provided the information to them. The best information I've gotten from the family, because they never filed a complaint, unfortunately, was that it was probably just somebody that picked her out of a phone book and called and actually just used the language type thing to deceive her, made it unclear what she was responding to.

So those were the two areas, and hearing them both, I instantly said, well, wait a minute, maybe we have something here. And, you know, that type of information, whether it's our electric infrastructure or the personal information, Social Security numbers, date of birth and all the other information.

Should we at least try to provide a remedy in place for those of our constituents that would necessarily have a hard time. so that's where they both come from, Representative.

REP. CARTER: Thank you very much.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: No problem.

REP. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions?

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome and I want to thank you for your initiative in putting this task force together. It was extremely well run, and I was impressed, as you indicated in your testimony, that both union and non-union trades agreed unanimously on something that needs to be done.

So thank you very much for your advocacy on it.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Are there any further questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you very much. (Inaudible).

REP. ARESIMOWICZ: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker is Tamera Jackson, then Joanne Fenn I think. I may have mispronounced, and Kate Charles.

TAMERA JACKSON: Good afternoon. Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, and members of the committee.

My name is Tamera Jackson, and I am here to testify in opposition to Raised Bill 375, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSUMER RENTAL CAR COST, REIMBURSEMENT AND USED MOTOR VEHICLE WARRANTIES.

I am the vice president and dealer operator of Jackson Chevrolet in Middletown, Connecticut. We are a third-generation, family-owned business started in 1936, and we have 53 dedicated team members who work with me every day to serve our customers in the greater Middletown community.

We are extremely involved in our community, from holding breast cancer fundraiser for the American Cancer Society to hosting local high school interns.

I also serve on the board of directors for the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce.

I am also a member of the Connecticut Automotive Retailers Association, a not for profit trade association that represents the interests of the 250 licensed franchised auto dealers and 12,000 employees in our state, and I'd like to note that we did not bring them all with us here this evening. There are just two of us.

CARA is opposed to this legislation. Last year the members of CARA contributed over $9 billion with a B in sales to the state's economy and represents 15 percent of all the retail sales in our state.

We are just coming out of the worst recession in history, where we lost over 30 percent of the new car dealers and 3,000 jobs.

This bill, at first blush, seems like it might help consumers. However, on closer inspection, it is not a good idea and my concern is that it will hurt used car consumers in our state and may violate numerous state and federal laws assuring transparency and choice in auto retail pricing and sales.

It requires that the used-car warranty, mandated by state law, include coverage for the cost of a rental car. That means any vehicle cold by a dealer In this state multiple sclerosis account for the cost of a rental car covering the times when the vehicle might possibly be in the shop for warranty work.

In essence this will force all used car consumers to pay for the cost of a rental car in the price of a used car. Most consumers don't want to pay for this type of option.

We believe this is anticonsumer. It is an expensive hidden option, and I believe it seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of other state laws that mandate transparency and consumer rights to choose options as part of the car-buying process.

Additionally, it will hurt the state's fragile economy and cause job losses in many smaller used-car stores. Dealers are under an increasing amount of pressure to comply with numerous laws and guidelines but we do it every day to ensure that our consumers are protected and that we remain good corporate citizens.

But even without these laws, dealers look out for their customers and work hard to retain their business. That's why dealerships like Jackson Chevrolet have been in business since 1936.

This bill, however,, seems to cross the line, distorting the market and artificially determining what a seller will sell and what a buyer will buy.

Many small used car dealers will be unable to stay in business with this type of mandate because many of their customers are not looking for this type of expensive option when they buy a used car.

Keep in mind that few new car manufacturer warranties cover a provision for a rental car during warranty service. If they do there are often requirements such as the repair must be an overnight repair and that sort of thing.

In addition, in the car business we're pressured by slim margins and fierce competition. In fact, the average dealer makes two pennies for every dollar that she has invested. It is extremely difficult to turn a profit and expenses are increasing everywhere we turn.

Legislating additional requirements that drive up cost are inherently anti-consumer. I, for one, offer loaner vehicles to my customers, new or pre-owned, based on availability when they are in for any kind of service or even maintenance, again, based on availability. This is the voluntary customer benefit, and is expensive for us to do.

In closing, just a couple of bullets that I just wanted to make sure that I hit on. Just give me one moment please.

Raising the price of a car with a warranty mandate will push these sales into the unregulated private sale market, where unlike licensed dealer sales, the vehicle will not have a safety inspection, and where consumers have few protections.

Pushing vehicles into private sales means that consumers will have absolutely no warranty coverage because private sales are not subject to the Connecticut Used Car Warranty law.

Pushing vehicle sales into private sales will have a negative fiscal impact on the DMV, which is struggling every day to reduce long lines at the DMV office.

Right now dealers register 40 percent of all vehicles at the dealership. Private sales, on the other hand, will need to be done at the DMV branches.

This bill will also reduce the price that dealers are willing to give for a trade-in, which many consumers need to use as a down payment, or to quality for a low loan rate.

Dealers who live in close proximity to bordering states will get a distinct price disadvantage because New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have no such mandate, and that the same car in Connecticut will always cost more.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM: Thank you.

Before I ask my question, I've been asked to remind everybody that the cafeteria is remaining upon until 7:00 p.m., so for those of you who look like you're about to fall off your seats, you can get some nourishment for the next hour and a quarter.

You indicated in your testimony that oftentimes dealerships already give rentals as, you know, might be available. And I know from personal experience usually there's a pretty extensive bus system where you're picking up people and driving them back to work or home.

TAMERA JACKSON: Right.

REP. BARAM: Is this something that's customary within the industry or is it more specific to your particular dealership?

TAMERA JACKSON: It truly varies. I'm not sure in other states what their common performance is, but it really varies dealer by dealer what they offer. And it also depends, I think, if the dealer is a used-car dealer that's an independent or if they represent a manufacturer, then the manufacturers have different requirements as well.

And also offer programs to facilitate that kind of -- you know, for example, if the manufacturer does offer a used-car when a car is required and a vehicle is in a warranty repair and needs to stay overnight, a lot of the manufacturers will facilitate that rental vehicle, making it possible for the dealer to do so for the consumer.

REP. BARAM: And lastly, do dealers ever offer their own warranty? It might be an additional cost that would include transportation?

TAMERA JACKSON: From time to time. Each business is operated differently, and in the sale process there are different packages that dealers will offer to the customer and again typically at the customer's discretion.

REP. BARAM: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions?

Representative Rovero.

REP. ROVERO: Here's a question for you, Mr. Chairman, probably.

If this bill was to pass is there any chance that it could be written into the bill that any car that was sold out of state that comes into Connecticut to be registered has to provide the same warranty as our local dealers would have to provide?

SENATOR DOYLE: We can look into it, but I think it will be difficult to achieve if it's sold in another state.

REP. ROVERO: I agree. If you're going to -- you know, I live right on the border with Massachusetts and you know, for someone to come over, you know --

SENATOR DOYLE: Yeah, but it's usually where it's sold. So it's sold in Massachusetts.

REP. ROVERO: But we could also put in there like we do with a car. You can buy a car in Mass. but you have to pay Connecticut sales tax where you raised it. Could be the same idea. Before you can get it raised in Connecticut you have to --

SENATOR DOYLE: You could try but it would be difficult to achieve. We could look into it. Maybe you can get (inaudible) to look into it, but I think it's unlikely.

REP. ROVERO: Okay.

TAMERA JACKSON: I think one of the interesting points there is that this bill in general will increase costs because the audition of this type of a proposal to make sure that everybody is following the letter of the law would be a difficult task I believe.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions from the committee?

Seeing non, thank you very much.

TAMERA JACKSON: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker is Joanne I think it's Fann. Thank you. I may have mispronounced your name. Kate Childs, Rick Bologna.

Joanne, thank you.

JOANNE FANN: Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, members of the committee, my name is Joanne Fann, and I reside in Naugatuck. And I'm here to support the Senate Bill 375.

I submitted written testimony, and have also attached a letter from the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles outlining the amount of complaints they're receiving from independent used car dealers that are selling vehicles.

I'm not going to bore you with all the details, but I purchased a vehicle October 25th and I've only had the vehicle for one week out of all those dates. I've been paying for my own rental, and I've been paying for all of my repairs because they refuse to honor their service warranty and also to provide a vehicle.

The warranty from the Connecticut Used Car Warranty, there's no time limit here. This can go on here for the rest of my life. I can own this vehicle, be in a rental, and never drive the car. It's been three months.

So I would hope that you guys would support this bill, add some language in it, maybe give them 60 days to get the car safety for the road, and if not they have to find me a comparable.

I know we have dealers in repair. They're not able to help. There's too many people that are complaining. There's not enough people over there to help them. So in the meantime we're stuck. This has been going on for three months. This is egregious the way I've been treated.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

So I assume -- did you contact your legislators? I think that's how the bill got introduced I think.

JOANNE FANN: I did. yes, sir.

SENATOR DOYLE: Who did you contact? Which one?

JOANNE FANN: Representatives (inaudible) and Senator Crisco.

SENATOR DOYLE: Yes, okay. Yeah, those are the sponsors of the bill.

JOANNE FANN: Yeah. At this point there's no recourse for me anywhere to go unless I incur more costs from hiring an attorney, and then I can't even get restitution on this car.

SENATOR DOYLE: And you contacted DMV?

JOANNE FANN: I contacted DMV. There's a letter attached from the commissioner. What they stated to me was he needed to find me a comparable car. He told me he can't. That was two months ago.

I was told he had to make the car road safe. That hasn't happened yet. It's been two months.

SENATOR DOYLE: Okay.

All right. Any further questions on the bill before us? Thank you very much for taking the time to come and waiting. Thank you.

JOANNE FANN: Thanks.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker is Kate Childs, Rick Bologna and John Bowman.

KATE CHILDS: Good evening, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, and members of the General Law Committee.

I'm here in opposition to Senate Bill 299, the ACT CONCERNING ESTABLISHING THE GUARANTEE FUND FOR PRE-PAID HEATING OIL.

Thank you for seeing me again, and the -- you have my written testimony but some of it is sort of the same as I said before, that the current law is really what we need to support to help protect consumers, that if you don't lock in your fixed-price oil in the methods that are best practice, that you're really not going to protect the consumer in any way without that law.

So I know we have been working together on this, and we'd like to keep that dialogue open.

And one of the notable things that we've talked about is the seasonal moratorium, and I think the basis behind that is that heating oil dealers will have their highest expenses during the heart of the winter and will be looking to have those bills paid before early spring or by early spring.

And the gist of it would be that we wouldn't be taking in consumers' money in the winter months to pay for our current debts. So that's the main premise we're offering as help on trying to help the legislature enforce the law.

So I won't go through my whole testimony. Also some didn't hear it before, but again the way to prevent companies from being bankrupt is to lock in your fuel prices.

SENATOR DOYLE: Yep. I'll just counter. First of all, we apologize that there are two bills at two different public hearings. That's not how normally we do it, and that's an oversight and we apologize.

But we are -- we have worked on compromise languages being drafted as we speak that does have the language, you know, or like suggested by the industry, that prohibits lock-in during the cold months.

So I think it will be -- there were meetings with the industry and with members of the committee and others about it, so especially the Marion (phonetic) Delegation, Representative Altobello was very active.

So I think the ultimate language will be positive. It's not going to be like either of the two bills, so hopefully that message will get out that we've worked together and I think we're going to have a good piece of legislation that won't destroy the market for lock-in contracts.

Any further questions?

But again we held a lengthy public hearing over at the University of Hartford.

So any further questions? Thank you very much.

Next speaker?

Rick Bologna, Rick, thank you. John Bowman, David Gable.

RICK BOLOGNA: Good evening, Chairman Doyle, Chairman Baram, members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Rick Bologna, and I'm a third-generation fuel dealer. My company, Westmore Fuel Company, is located in Greenwich down in Fairfield County, and we employ 38 people and we serve approximately 5,000 customers.

This year we celebrate our 76th year in business. I come here today in opposition of S.B. 299 that establishes a new guarantee fund on heating oil dealers.

Just like you heard from a colleague of mine, I'm going to take a little different angle on this. In my opinion, the proposed fund actually penalizes dealers such as myself. A lot of us are family-owned businesses, been in the business for decades.

And day in and day out we deliver what we promise to our customers. So I'm going to cut my testimony short. At that, you have my written testimony, but if you have any questions I'll be happy to address those now.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you. Rest assured your comments were heeded and of your colleagues' a few weeks ago at the University of Hartford. Thank you.

Further comments or questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much.

RICK BOLOGNA: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker John Bowman. Is John Bowman here? David Gable?

DAVID GABLE: Good evening, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, members of the General Law Committee.

My name is David Gable. I'm the president of Hocon Gas, chairman of the Connecticut Legislative Committee of the Propane Gas Association of New England and past president.

Hocon Gas has been in business for over 60 years, with 120 employees and five distribution locations here in Connecticut. We've never sold a fixed-price option to a customer without being fully (inaudible).

Our company has always obeyed the law when protecting the vital interests of our customers, especially when they elect to purchase fixed-price products from our company.

We're extremely disappointed that some companies in the past have ignored the law and hurt the consumers in our state.

Although S.B. 299 appears on the surface to be a remedy for consumers, I think it will actually hurt them by increasing the cost to them and potentially increase the success rate of bogus offers from now intended home-heating fuel suppliers.

Bogus offers are what hurt consumers in the past. Increasing these kind of offers in the future I don't think can be a good thing.

More people will take the risk knowing that the state will make them whole if the dealer fails. It's tantamount to gambling at (inaudible) son with the taxpayers' money.

Instead of requiring a guarantee fund, we would suggest our already-established laws be strengthened by adding a moratorium period that's obviously under discussion. The moratorium period will weed out the too-good-to-be-true product offers and deny poorly-run companies the funds to perpetuate poor business practices during the winter months when they need the consumers' money the most.

Strengthening our laws by adding a moratorium period combined with greater enforcement of our current laws I think will help eliminate the need for the guaranteed fund laws that associated costs while allowing consumers fixed-price contracts for those who want them.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you very much.

Any questions from the committee?

Thank you very much. And to be honest, we had that long public hearing. We had a lot of discussion on the similar bill, so it's no disrespect to your comments, it's just the committee --

DAVID GABLE: I wasn't sure whether I should actually have come up and testified because I know (inaudible).

SENATOR DOYLE: Okay. No, it's good to get on the record. But don't take no questions -- there's a lot of interest. Thank you.

Next speaker is Joe Rose, Dr. Chris Gargamelli, Nick Scatta.

Joe Rose.

JOE ROSE: Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, my name is Joe Rose. I'm the president and chief executive officer of the Propane Gas Association of New England here today representing the 101 members of our organization who sell propane to consumers in Connecticut.

We strongly oppose S.B. 299 as presented. I was very pleased to hear your remarks a couple minutes ago about working on substitute language. Our organization has been working with various legislators, and with the Connecticut Energy Marketers Association for the past few weeks to come up with a solution that we can all agree on that protects consumers.

In lieu of the rest of my testimony, which basically talks about the moratorium, the things that you're going to -- you've already heard about and the things that you're going to continue to hear about I'd like to save you some time.

The other thing I'd like to offer up if I might is that we have about another 15 fuel oil and propane dealers prepared to testify, and in the interest of your time, if you would prefer, we're willing to withdraw the remainder of our testimony in anticipation of the substitute language.

SENATOR DOYLE: Sounds like a good -- maybe we could have everyone stand if you want.

JOE ROSE: Sure. Would everyone that's in the propane and fuel oil business in this room stand up?

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Would the committee, in a bipartisan fashion, did hear the comments and a lengthy discussion in the University of Hartford. That's why we are moving forward to try to work to compromise. So we appreciate you coming today and we are going to continue to work together to compromise.

JOE ROSE: Great.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

And Representative Baram would like to make a comment.

REP. BARAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to reiterate that we have heard your voices and it was unfortunate that this bill could not be put on the same public hearing agenda as the other one.

And I would just ask if perhaps you could check in with our clerk so he can tell us who you are and we can cross you off our list. But we do know what your feelings are and your points of view and we appreciate it.

Thank you.

JOE ROSE: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you. I also wanted to echo my co chair's comments. You know, your testimony was very, very compelling and educational at the University of Hartford when we had it there, discussing a similar-type bill. and it was really enlightening to us to hear from your perspective how the system can work if it's instituted the way it's meant to be.

And we thank you for some of your comments in bringing that forward and rest assured we are incorporating many of those suggestions in the substitute language so we want to thank you all for coming again tonight.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

Representative Altobello, (inaudible).

REP. ALTOBELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sir, you offered to withdraw the remaining testimony. I suggest you might request that we leave it on the record but that the remaining speakers may not want to speak to this issue today.

JOE ROSE: As always, your wisdom is well received. Thank you.

REP. ALTOBELLO: You're welcome.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

And is Angel, our clerk here?

Well, maybe gentlemen if we could somehow get the names -- okay, Chris. Okay, good. Chris will take care of it. Thank you, Mr.

And thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you.

All right, the next speaker Dr. Chris Gargamelli.

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, members of the General Law Committee.

I'm Dr. Chris Gargamelli, and I represent the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association, which includes the majority of Connecticut licensed veterinarians as its members.

I'm testifying in support of H.B. 5474, AN ACT EXEMPTING VETERINARIANS FROM THE ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING PROGRAM.

When veterinary practitioners were included in the electronic prescription drug monitoring program, it is our belief that we were inadvertently included.

With a desire to keep our members in compliance with the law, the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association leadership met with the Department of Consumer Protection representative in July 2013.

It was determined at that time that it would be very difficult for veterinarians to comply with the law mandating that information about every patient-prescribed controlled drug be entered into the Connecticut Prescription Monitoring and Reporting System.

Mandatory fields for that system include patient last name, patient first name, patient address, patient date of birth, and patient gender. Veterinary patients are animals, and as such they just have a name, be it Fluffy or Fido. They have a name.

And in regards to patient date of birth, many animals' date of birth, including the year, are unknown. A lot of animals in Connecticut -- Connecticut is one of the top states in the country to have rescued or adopted animals. And most of those animals you don't know the date of birth.

Were they born January 1st? were they born February 5th? What year? I don't know, half the time we look at them we can't tell what year they were born. And they carry no identification cards to confirm any information, including the identity of the owner.

So when veterinarians do try to comply with this system, because right now it is a requirement that we do, we can't comply. We have to guess at the information, and that's no way to try to follow along, by guessing.

The purpose of H.B. 5474 is to exempt veterinarians so that veterinarians will no longer be in violation of the law. And I understand that drug seeking and doctor shopping for prescription narcotics are a problem in human patients. Our animal patients don't doctor shop.

So in conclusion, you know, a lot of these drugs that people are going for the doctors to doctor shop for, such as oxycodone, they're just not a problem in veterinary medicine. We don't use them. So I urge you to vote in favor of H.B. 5474, so that veterinarians can once again be the law-abiding practitioners we want to be. Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you, Doctor.

Any questions from the committee?

Representative Rutigliano

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Doctor. I just had one quick question.

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: Sure.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: What amounts of narcotics are generally prescribed to pets?

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: So the example I use to explain this is a drug called Buprenorphine, which is a narcotic commonly used for pain control in cats. So we prescribe a tenth of an ml. So an ml is that very small syringe that you would see, you know, for a child, a very small syringe. And we put a tenth, which is 0.1.

So that's a standard dose. And a cat may home with say 10 doses of those, which would be 1 ml. The standard single dose for a human would be 1 to 5 ml. So the total amount we're sending home for a single patient is less than one dose for a person.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: It's less than one dose for a person? Okay. And does that change by the size of the animal?

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: So yeah, so let's use a 50-pound dog.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Okay.

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: So, you know, a 50-pound dog may get half to, you know, a standard -- say we use, you know, we would use -- I'm trying to think of even -- we don't use very commonly narcotics in dogs to begin with because we use a lot of anti-inflammatories.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Right.

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: But if we were to use codeine, they would get the standard human size, they would get a quarter of a tablet for (inaudible).

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Okay. So you're saying it's not even common for you to use a narcotic in a dog?

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: Right.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Are there any further questions from the committee? Nothing?

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thanks.

Doctor, from DCP, did they just give you guys a pass temporarily and say you know, we've got some legislation in, we'll try to address your concern?

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: What we were told when we met with them, they at one point said it wasn't in our best interest to answer any further questions from you.

SENATOR WITKOS: I hear you. Okay. Great.

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: So they did not have answers when we, in good faith, met with them to address this issue. 'Cause we want to be in compliance with the law. We just can't.

SENATOR WITKOS: I totally understand and respect that, and sometimes, you know, good legislation, while well-intended, has some repercussions that are unintended and we'll fix that for you this time around.

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: Thank you. I really appreciate it.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you.

DR. CHRIS GARGAMELLI: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker is Eric D'Eramo, Todd Birch, Glen Marshal.

Eric?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Good evening, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, and members of the committee.

My name is Eric D'Eramo and I am the director of business operations and resources for Environmental Control, a company employing 195 people.

In addition, I carry an active State of Connecticut sheet metal contractor's license, and I am president of the Connecticut Heating and Cooling Contractors' Association.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this important matter of apprenticeship ratio.

As an active licensed contractor involved in the heating and cooling industry here in Connecticut, I would like to express my strong support for the raised Senate Bill 268.

Senate Bill 268 pertains to the number of apprentices or helpers a company may hire and register in the State of Connecticut. The current hiring ratio penalizes a company as it grows by reducing the number of apprentices it can hire.

This bill will change this for the smaller contractor to a more favorable one apprentice for each license holder. And therefore be consistent with the job site ratio.

Over the last several years, the Connecticut trade schools, public and private, have done a good job modifying and improving upon their curriculum in an effort to produce better-qualified graduates to meet the needs of employers.

In addition, many employers are involving themselves into schools through career days, work study and shadowing programs. The State Department of Education is investing money in radio and Internet commercials encouraging young adults to attend technical high schools.

The classrooms continue to be full. However, upon graduation, a feeling, a great sense of accomplishment about their achievement they face disappointment when they apply for a job.

They are told by these same employers they cannot hire them due to ratio restrictions. S.B. 268 can correct this problem.

In my company alone, I have several employees who invested time and money to learn the heating and cooling trade. They are currently pushing brooms, loading trucks or handling inventory while sitting on an internal apprenticeship waitlist.

There continues to be a shortage of qualified tradesmen here in Connecticut, and developing a farm team is critical to the future of this business. It is important to understand that these students represent our future workforce, and we must continue to transfer to them the knowledge of our master technicians and mechanics.

We must take advantage of this opportunity before us to increase the number of skilled tradesmen in our labor pool, especially in light of the comprehensive energy plan and strategy by the governor.

In closing, I urge you to support this piece of legislation. In doing so you will be helping Connecticut take steps towards ensuring opportunities for apprentices and providing a mechanism to allow contractors to create more jobs.

Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions you may have.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any questions?

Representative Witkos -- Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

Thank you for coming up to testify today. Could you please explain to me if a student in a technical college or a high school comes to an apprenticeship, say use your shop as an example, and they're only there one or two days a week, that counts as a full apprenticeship so it takes away that spot from somebody else?

Could you just explain that I'm accurate on that assumption?

ERIC D'ERAMO: If the student's in a technical high school or a technical college, that is what we call a internship pre-apprentice. We have to register that student no matter how many hours they're with us, as long as they walk on a job site they need to be registered and carrying an apprenticeship card. It does take up a space.

SENATOR WITKOS: Even though that they're only there -- so can you take two part-time to count as one spot? Or it's by individual no matter how many hours they put in?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Yep. The Department of Labor will look at that and do a calculation based on your company size, and then that individual will get registered and they take up the spot.

SENATOR WITKOS: And I understand there may be some concerns about having an apprentice with -- a journeyman, I guess, the journeyman one is the trainer.

ERIC D'ERAMO: Yes. The journeyman is the licensed --

SENATOR WITKOS: The licensed person. And so it's always a one to one ratio, so out in the field doing the actual work, not like if they were in-house doing design work on a computer?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Correct. This is not about on the job. On the job it's always been one to one, that's a safety issue. You need to be working with a licensed contractor, licensed holder on that job site. This is no about this. This is about hiring ratio.

So right now in my company, because I'm bigger, I only could hire one apprentice for every three licensed. I get penalized because I'm a bigger company.

This bill today before you is going to help those contractors that are five license holders and less by increasing the number.

SENATOR WITKOS: Is there a down side to this where people say well, because now you have the ability to have more apprentices it's going to take somebody's job away?

ERIC D'ERAMO: I can't see how it's going to take away someone's job. people are in business today, they're managing risk. You're not going to put more than the legal limit out on the job site.

By having a bigger hiring ratio gives us an opportunity to expose these individuals inside the office, help them understand how to order material, purchase, s when they're out in the field they're a better apprentice. They're a better mechanic. They grow into a better technician.

SENATOR WITKOS: And you had mentioned in your testimony about the expansion of need because of the governor's initiative with the comprehensive energy strategy, how many jobs are you forecasting that you're going to need in your industry to meet those requirements, or do we have enough already in the workforce?

I don't have the exact numbers, but we could get that for you, and Jen Jennings, executive director, is here today so if we don't have the answers we'll get it.

But I could tell you that comprehensive energy strategy, from our standpoint, most of our contractors in the association and including my company, we do mostly residential. The governor of the gas companies are looking to convert a lot of residential properties to natural gas. It's not going to happen.

I have the opportunity to do work with Southern Connecticut Natural Gas, and Connecticut Natural Gas qualified, pre-qualified everything, I don't have the manpower right now.

And I could put 12 to 15 people to work tomorrow, and I'm constantly interviewing, or constantly hiring. Our company's been around for 45 years. We're a magnet because of the benefits we pay above normal wages.

I would love to put some of these younger -- and when I say younger employees, these are guys coming out of the military. They're working on bases. I can't even let them come and work in my company.

They're doing air conditioning repair under gunfire, but that's not acceptable in the State of Connecticut, which is just wrong.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

Oh, sorry. Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM: Thank you.

I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the issue. When you talk about apprentice, is it like an internship or -- and are these people paid and is the pay scale equal to what you would have to pay an employee?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Yes. It is a -- we refer to it as an apprenticeship. It's similar to a public accountant coming out. It's similar to a resident in a medical field. It's similar to a lawyer.

As they're sitting to take their exam, they have to go through an internship, residency, call it what you want. With our programs the government by the Department of Labor, they have to have schooling, they have to have on-the-job training, which is all outlined when you enter the agreement.

So there are some that are shortest. Two years for on-the-job training, in a one-to-one situation on the job site. There are some that last four years. But they all require education at the technical schools, correspondence classes or, you know, these technical colleges are starting to do it.

REP. BARAM: So if somebody was coming out of a technical college, and they were taking the exam, once they become licensed are they still technically an apprentice or do they become a journeyman?

ERIC D'ERAMO: They wouldn't be able to sit for the exam. After coming out of those schools they have to get enrolled right into an apprenticeship. They have to satisfy the on-the-job experience, the number of hours in the field working with the hand tools.

Once they satisfy that they are eligible to be completed by the Department of Labor, the Department of Labor will verify that they did all their apprenticeship hours under the supervision of that contractor, sign off and issue them a completion certificate, which then they will send along with their application to sit for the exam.

So they have to complete their field work and then verify it with the state.

REP. BARAM: So it's analogous let's say to the medical profession where you have to perform your residency --

ERIC D'ERAMO: Yes.

REP. BARAM: -- in order to become a full practicing doctor?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Yes. But I must point out if you ever laid in a bed at the hospital there's 15 or 20 residents looking at you. They're dealing with medicine. We're, you know, we're dealing with changing out furnaces and they should be under the strict regulation.

REP. BARAM: Well, that leads me to my next question. I'm trying again to understand. So you said there's a difference between an apprentice where they're in house, I think you said, whether they're doing secretarial, maintenance, whatever, but they're not -- if they go out into the field, it's a one-one relationship.

And that's not being changed by this legislation, it's really if you hire an apprentice and they're working in your office just to learn the kinds of things you do, you're asking for a change in the ratio for that specific purpose?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Yes. We're looking at the hiring ratio, so it's all about the number of apprentices that we can hire and train them internally, whether it's in classes, reading, blueprints, working with our project managers, going out on sales calls.

Those guys are waiting to go out in the field on a one-to-one situation.

REP. BARAM: So then my next question is let's say there was an unemployed journeyman or somebody who's already licensed.

ERIC D'ERAMO: Yes.

REP. BARAM: And you needed more employees, wouldn't it be to your advantage to hire the unemployed person who's already licensed with the experience, than going through the apprentice program?

I understand there's a value to apprentice, 'cause that's how we get new people into the --

ERIC D'ERAMO: And it's an important thing. I would hire that unemployed journeyman, because he's going to give me another license and he's going to be able to go out and take an apprentice with him and go do work.

There's an opportunity for both parties there. But without the apprentices, I can't grow my company. I need apprentices to come in, do their two to four years experience, learn, get that knowledge transferred to them, help them understand our way of doing quality work, and then they become a licensed holder for me, which then allows me to bring in another apprentice behind them.

REP. BARAM: I understand that part of it, but what I'm trying to zero in on is if you wanted to grow your company and there were 50 unemployed journeymen, couldn't you do it through that route as well, forgetting the apprentice program and just saying if I need 10 more employees, I'll do it.

I'm trying to understand why the apprentices are so important to growing the company. I understand it's important that these apprentices have work experience so they can get licensed. But I'm just separating that for a moment.

ERIC D'ERAMO: Sure.

REP. BARAM: I'm just trying to understand the company itself, why is there such an emphasis on the apprentice as opposed to hiring somebody who's, let's say, unemployed?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Well, I could talk to the unemployed but let's just take a step back and look at it from a business standpoint. As a business owner, everybody wants to make sure their company grows, creates jobs, takes care of those employees' families.

And you want to be able to continue to take care of your customers. And some companies will choose to remain small. It took us 45 years to get where we are, but we have that strategy. We have that slow, natural growth.

Journeymen are important whether they're coming in from another company or unemployed. They're adding licenses to us, they're giving us experienced work force, they're giving us a knowledge base out there.

But let's be honest, we have to continue to bring in younger apprentices or an individual that came out of the military to learn the trade so that maybe that journeyman is getting up in age and he wants to go in and become a dispatcher in my company.

Maybe he wants to get into sales. Maybe you know, he wants to become involved with purchasing. A lot of companies today don't look at it as they're just out there making me money and it's low wages.

The wages are dictated by the Department of Labor. It's not -- and they're above the minimum wage, so it's not about cheap labor here. It's about creating jobs, giving people a chance, developing companies that will bring tax dollars into the state and help us achieve some of the strategies that the governor's put in place.

REP. BARAM: Thank you very much.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions from the committee?

Representative Orange.

REP. ORANGE: Good evening, sir. How are you?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Good evening.

REP. ORANGE: I was just wondering, have you actually contacted the Department of Labor regarding your issue?

ERIC D'ERAMO: Regarding -- can you clarify my issue?

REP. ORANGE: Well, in current law the Department of Labor can offer you relief when needed, the ratio, relief. So have you spoken with someone in the Department of Labor and asked for this?

ERIC D'ERAMO: I have not, but you know, it's interesting you bring that up because I was up in the Labor Committee, because the bill's up there as well. And the Commissioner of the Department of Labor was up there testifying.

And then afterwards, we kind of saw her outside in the hallway and there was an individual there that had applied for ratio relief three or four times. And she said the same thing. "Why didn't you approach me? We could change that."

And he says, "I did. Here's the letters. You denied me four times." She says, "Well, what was the reason?" And he's like, "I don't know. Your name's on it, you signed it."

I think that's something that we walk around and we talk about ratio relief. I don't know if it really exists though. I got to be honest with you. I really don't think it exists.

REP. ORANGE: Well, that's very interesting that Labor has the same bill that we're hearing here, and that you did speak with the commissioner. So I'm sure knowing Sharon as well as I do and for so many years that I do, I'm sure she'll look into this for you.

ERIC D'ERAMO: Yeah. She made a commitment to us to take a look at why things are, you know, ratio relief is -- the applications are being processed, but, you know, I don't know the answer on that.

And, you know, from my own personal standpoint, I want to do it by the letter of the law. If I'm supposed to have three to one, I'm going to do three to one. Do I like it? No. I'm a larger company that I have the cash flow, I have the work flow to develop jobs in the state. I don't think I need to go down that exception road. It's not a good statement from my standpoint.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

Next speaker is Todd Berch.

TODD BERCH: Good evening, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram, members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Todd Berch. I'm with the Connecticut AFL/CIO. I'm here on behalf of Executive Secretary Treasurer Lori Pelletier.

Before you I have two bills, the first one in opposition to Senate Bill 268, AN ACT CONCERNING APPRENTICE RATIOS.

An apprentice in construction trades is an entry-level employee. Most construction trades affiliates of the Connecticut AFL/CIO have multiyear apprenticeships in order for the apprentice to hone their skills.

Upon completion and testing and the required on-the-job training, these apprentices become journey persons. Regardless of the vocation one chooses, apprenticeship is nothing more than learning the craft.

Apprenticeship teaches someone how to go about working in a safe manner and not harming themselves or others in the process. Learning a skill from a journey person, the proper and professional manager of the craft, is being at the side of a journey person, not off to the side.

Proponents of this bill claim there is a large demand for people to become apprentices. We agree with that. The proponents are excluding the fact that there are also an availability of journey persons that are available and unemployed at this time seeking the same opportunity.

Do not be fooled the difference is purely cost. A journey person's qualification is the equivalent to having a college degree. The apprentice is working towards getting that degree, but is no expert until requirements have been met.

Therefore, they're unqualified to be by themselves, producing work, or having enough experience to keep them from working in a safe manner. Never mind the fact it's against the law. That is why a one-to-one ratio, regardless of how far out you go with it, is not only correct, it's proper.

With regard to Senate Bill 412, AN ACT CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN OCCUPATION LICENSING STATUTES, we support this bill as it pertains to the augmenting, to augmenting the ability of the commissioner of Consumer Protection, in concert with the various licensing boards, with greater enforcement capabilities to level the playing field for those that abide by current laws.

This bill is necessary for ensuring that public safety and health measures are upheld to the highest standard by properly trained and licensed craftspeople performing their work.

We appreciate the committee holding this hearing, and we urge passage of this bill. Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you. Mr. Berch, you testified that we should not change the one-to-one ratio of journeymen to apprentice, and I don't believe the bill does that.

TODD BERCH: I agree.

SENATOR WITKOS: So

TODD BERCH: It's on the onset, correct? When it goes about three to one, am I correct?

SENATOR WITKOS: No. It always maintains the one-to-one ratio up until five, and then you have to have -- then it goes back to the original language where you have to have four -- 14 journeymen to six apprentices.

So there's no change in the ratio of apprentices to licenses, they're always on a one-to-one basis.

TODD BERCH: All right.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions from the committee?

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM: Thank you.

I just want to again ask a few questions to better understand this. So your opinion is that there are sufficient let's say journeymen who are unemployed who could fill some of the positions that are needed by some of these growing companies? Is that what you're saying?

TODD BERCH: The position of the AFL/CIO with regard to hearing from its affiliate, is yes, they have a large amount of unemployed journeypersons, as well as apprentices as well. Don't get me wrong.

REP. BARAM: And a journeyman who is hired by a company would actually be able to go right out into the field and do a job himself, him or herself, is that correct?

TODD BERCH: That's correct.

REP. BARAM: Whereas the apprentice would have to have that supervision?

TODD BERCH: Right.

REP. BARAM: And am I correct if a company hired more journeymen, then by definition they're allowed to have more apprentices because if we're doing this ratio the more journeymen the more apprentices. Is that a correct assumption?

TODD BERCH: That's a correct assumption.

REP. BARAM: And not being familiar with the wage differentials, the prior speaker testified that Department of Labor regulates what the wages are for apprentices. Do you have enough information offhand to share us what that disparity might be?

TODD BERCH: I do not have that information in front of me. I know that there is, you know, I don't want to say substantial, but there is a difference. By year of apprentice and percentage of journeyperson's wage. I know that as a fact, but I don't have that precise percentage of what it is.

REP. BARAM: And then the last thing, and I'm still having trouble understanding it, if a company let's say has five apprentices and they're working inside, they're you know, observing, learning the paperwork, doing some customer service, how does that help that company grow in terms of getting out in the field and doing the job if the apprentice can't go into the field and do the job they're really just an observer learning from the journeyman. Does it matter how many apprentices you have?

I'm just trying to figure out, you know, you could have five apprentices but if they're not able to go out and do the work, how does that help a company as opposed to hiring a journeyman who, you know, let's say works (inaudible) natural gas in Connecticut, don't we need the people to go out in the field and do the work today to be able to accomplish that?

TODD BERCH: I know what you're asking. I'm going to try and answer you the best I can. If you have a journeyperson that is working in the craft outside of what you're describing, customer service and such, don't get me wrong. I think it's a very vital part of the industry. I come from the industry so I can answer to this.

If a journeyperson is out doing the work an apprentice should be by the side of that journeyperson to learn that craft to become a journeyperson. So if there's a journeyperson out there and there's five in the shop, doing customer service and such like that, that's not really apples and oranges.

They're not necessarily in the field. they are learning the business aspect of the particular trade, but they're not learning the trade because they're actually not in the field where that requirement is out there for the journeyperson himself.

So I understand what you're asking, and I would like to contemplate that for a while. I could get back to you on probably a better answer.

REP. BARAM: Trying to use an analogy, I'll take my own law office. I mean, you could hire five paralegals who can do the legal research and give you the information, but they can't go to court, they can't meet with clients because they're not lawyers yet or pseudo interns.

So if I'm growing my law practice and I need lawyers who are going to service these potential clients, I need someone who's licensed. And I'd become oversaturated with people doing research and helping out. It wouldn't necessarily help me grow and expand, you know, until these people became lawyers.

But that's what I'm having trouble understanding 'cause I understand the need for the company to grow but if there is a demand and they need to feel that demand now it seems that they would hire somebody who's capable to hit the ground running and can do that work.

TODD BERCH: I think your analogy is absolutely correct if you were to twist it backwards. If you had five lawyers and five researchers, five paralegals, you'd be first of all compliant, and second of all, you would have more people in your office ready to hit the ground running.

So your business has grown exponentially by four, and you have people to back them up. So now you don't have a large pool of researchers, you actually have a shortage of researchers, you have one person to take care of each lawyer. Am I correct in that assumption?

I'm trying to answer your question.

REP. BARAM: I'm not sure a law office would financially make it if you had to pay --

TODD BERCH: I understand that.

REP. BARAM: -- one paralegal or one --

TODD BERCH: But if you had the work to do such it goes along the same way with trades. If you had enough work to do such it would be the same exact way. And your paralegals would probably want to become lawyers, I would imagine, correct, some day possibly? It's the same thing with apprentices. They want to become a journeyperson.

REP. BARAM: Thanks a lot.

SENATOR DOYLE: Representative Rutigliano.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, sir.

TODD BERCH: Good evening, Representative. How are you today?

REP. RUTIGLIANO: I just have one question, and I don't know if it's relevant. That's why I'm asking.

TODD BERCH: Okay.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Can an apprentice be a part-timer? When I was listening to the gentleman before your testimony, I thought he said he had some kids that were still in school and that the law considered even a part-time apprentice a one. So he maybe wanted two part-timers to kind of equal one.

TODD BERCH: I don't have that answer for you. I will definitely get that answer for you.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: I appreciate that.

TODD BERCH: Yeah. I don't have that offhand.

REP. RUTIGLIANO: Okay. That was my only question. Thank you.

TODD BERCH: Yep.

SENATOR DOYLE: Representative Carter.

REP. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here.

Do all apprentices make it to journeyman or do a lot of them apprentice for a while and decide to do something different?

TODD BERCH: It depends by trade, I would have to imagine. It's like going to college. You're going -- some are four-year apprentices. A lot of people drop out of college after freshman, sophomore year, same thing happens with apprentices. So it depends on the individual. I don't have specifics what the dropout rate is.

You know, it does have a golden carrot at the end of the stick. A journey person is a very skilled person that makes a very decent salary so I would say that they strive to make it just like a college student would.

REP. CARTER: And one other question. Let's just say for the sake of argument, somebody testified earlier and said this is not about cost. What if it is? So what?

If somebody wants to hire more apprentices coming through, they can only apprentice for so long and they move through the pipeline, you know, for the business obviously they would lose having somebody there. They would have a turnover and deal with all that.

But what is really wrong with that concept allowing people to flow into the industry from your perspective?

TODD BERCH: So you would actually state that it would be okay for apprentices to go out and conduct work, do work?

REP. CARTER: No. I'm saying they -- I don't know how this works.

TODD BERCH: Okay.

REP. CARTER: But obviously one journeyman can go out on their own, right?

TODD BERCH: Yep.

REP. CARTER: So when a journeyman takes an apprentice and they're paying the apprentice, isn't the apprentice supposed to do some work when they're out there?

TODD BERCH: Uh-huh.

REP. CARTER: So I would say you'd probably get jobs done pretty quickly? You'd be paying more than one journeyman. You'd have two people working at the job, and you'd be, you know, building something so this kid could go out and have a career of their own sometime, open their own shop or whatever it takes.

So what is wrong with that from your perspective?

TODD BERCH: I see where you're going with that. And I'm trying to answer it properly. I think the main point that I'm trying to make about cost is you can't just have an apprentice out in the field by themselves. First of all, it's kind of sneaky. And that's what happens a lot of times. That does happen.

I don't understand why companies would not want -- I understand why they want to invest in apprentices and apprentices. It does grow their business over time, plus it gives them an opportunity to look at what type of employee they may be, and keep 'em.

And other people have testified they have small shops and things like that. It gives a chance for a company to grow while they're grooming their employee.

If you just want to go and make money as a particular trade, just hire a journeyperson period. But if you want to grow over time and you want to, again start grooming people into that type of business, if it's a seller type of business, that's when you go with the apprentice program, no question about it.

So I think -- I'm trying to answer your question from what I'm trying to get what you're asking.

REP. CARTER: Thank you.

And to be honest, I don't know that -- I know that he testified he's going to grow his business this way, I don't know that you can grow your business that way at all. You probably don't. You'd probably just stay a small business.

But what you do is you create a pipeline for the bigger businesses perhaps. I don't know. But I appreciate your testimony and your candor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Anyone else?

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

Sometimes the luxury of when you're talking you get some more questions. So I just had a couple more questions.

TODD BERCH: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WITKOS: If -- what are the number of hours that somebody needs to get a -- or years -- is it by years or hours to go from a apprentice to a journeyman? How do they track that?

TODD BERCH: I believe it's hours and years and if you are a registered apprentice, I'm just going from my own experience, and that's 25 years ago now. I used to have this -- they called it a blue book and I would actually log in my hours every week and my superior, my foreman would sign off on it.

As a registered apprentice I was required to go to classes and such and bring that book, say this is -- these are my hours logged as on-the-job training.

So it would also correlate with my classroom instruction.

SENATOR WITKOS: Was there -- I don't know, does the practice differentiate between classroom hours and out in the field work hours?

TODD BERCH: I believe it still does. I don't have your exact answer but yes. I believe it does.

SENATOR WITKOS: All right. So regardless of that so the scenario that if you got five young persons or any age, I shouldn't put an age -- five people working in the shop doing sales or purchasing, learning that aspect of the business, they aren't getting the hours that they need for out in the field work to get their journeymen, so it doesn't matter how much time they spend in the shop, eventually if they want to become a journeyman, they've got to get out in the field and get those hours to get that license. Is that correct?

TODD BERCH: In theory, yeah. I think you might -- you would want to check with the Department of Labor on that. I don't have that exact -- I will get that for you if you'd like me to.

SENATOR WITKOS: If DCP or somebody is going to testify I'll ask them if they're familiar.

TODD BERCH: Yeah. Right.

SENATOR WITKOS: And now you said sometimes people you may be aware that they're sending apprentices out in the field illegally. Are you aware what the penalties are? Does the shop lose their license or does a journeyman get kicked out of the program or what are the ramifications?

I mean, somebody's putting, I imagine, their business on the line for doing that. I don't know what the penalties are. Any idea?

TODD BERCH: I know that there are penalties. I am not quite sure what they are.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

TODD BERCH: Thank you.

SENATOR DOYLE: Next speaker is Al Rizzo, then Glenn Marshall.

Al Rizzo.

AL RIZZO: It's getting close to bedtime. You people work too late.

My name is Al Rizzo, and I'm owner of Rizzo Pool Company for the past 60 years. But I'm here representing the Customer Relations Committee of Connecticut Spa & Pool Association. We call it CONSPA.

And good evening, Senators and Representatives.

I'm here in favor of Bill 267. It breaks down into three portions and I want you to understand. One portion is simple. It's continual -- enforcement of continual education. The Department of Consumer Protection, TCP, has been enforcing it for the past 14 years, but according to law, they don't have that enforcement right, they'll give them that right.

Second part of the bill is meant in training, and it's something similar to what you were just listening to, where we can hire high school and college students through the December months and train them to clean pools properly and there is a program that we have already set up a place for their training and they're registered.

We started several months ago in conjunction with the Department of Consumer Protection, and they're the ones that are controlling it.

The third part of the bill is simply an explanation of what an SP-1 and SP-2 can do. SP-1 represents the owner of a pool service company and a repair company, and SP-2 is the journeymen. But it takes quite a bit of -- 4,000 hours of on-the-job training, plus 280 hours of schooling for them to reach that portion of the journeyman.

The problem is that along the way there's some mix-up as to the understanding of what a serviceman can and can't do. Right now that journeyman is the only one who is allowed to go and clean pools, and in order to do so he needs very little training. You don't have to be around that many years to learn how to clean a pool.

So we hire high school through the summer and college boys or girls and get them in and we give them a week of training, on-the-job training, and a day of schooling. It's in-house schooling. We have it all and any one of the companies can do their own training and the schooling.

The Association also puts on the training if it needs to be. The problem then with that section, which is -- I've submitted this -- it's Section 20-417(a)(a), Paragraph A. And it has to do with explaining what it means.

And we submitted several pages to this committee for the bill, and the attorneys in abbreviation got it all small that we lost some of the meeting along the way. So I've handed out another paragraph just for that.

And it does a better job of describing exactly what the men in training are allowed to do on their own after they've been trained properly.

Now some of these people come back all through high school and college, work their way through, it helps them work their way through. And there's no such thing as minimum wage in ours. I mean, they start out at 11-$12 an hour, and they actually work their way up from that as they get more progressive with what they do.

Connecticut Swimming Pool Association started in the early 1960s as a consumer advocate group for the pool industry. Incorporated in 1967. I served as the first president, and it has been in existence ever since. We have our own training programs, we instituted in the 1980s a certification program, and we've been licensed since 1998 and after getting grandfathered in 2000 it took hold and we've been in existence at that program ever since.

So if you have any questions on 267 or the one I passed out for that first paragraph, I'll be glad to answer them.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Rizzo.

Any questions from the committee?

Representative Carter.

REP. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Rizzo, for being here. In one section, actually in Section 1, there's a piece where it talks about the water treatment of a swimming pool was added in there. Now, is that to imply that anybody who does water treatment has to be licensed at this point or fall into this?

AL RIZZO: Are you asking me?

REP. CARTER: I am asking. Is that (inaudible).

AL RIZZO: Yes. The sanitation of water, they're adding chemicals. We've been allowed to do that since 2000. Just pertaining to pool water itself, same thing is acid washing and draining a pool.

REP. CARTER: So here's my question. So if I own a pool at home, does this mean now I have to call you to come do my water treatment?

AL RIZZO: No.

REP. CARTER: Can I still do it on my own?

AL RIZZO: No. You're allowed as a homeowner to do anything you want to do. When we build a pool and turn it over to you as a homeowner, there's never a problem. You come to class and we send technicians out to train you. After three or four times out there you usually get the hang of it and you can do it.

When you make a mistake you'll call up and ask us. The problem really occurs that these men are our front line of action. When I walk on a property and they're trained to do this, I look at the gate. Is the gate opening and closing automatically?

Will it shut properly? Is the fence in good condition? How is it decked when you get there? is the coping good? And this takes place when the pool becomes old like me, you know, starts falling apart. And nobody pays attention to it, especially a new homeowner.

So somewhere along the line we have to have these people there to do it, and actually the young people that join as men in training are trained in safety and be able to report back, hey, we got main drain covers missing or the diving board is broken, or something like that. It creates more business and it also protects the public.

REP. CARTER: Thank you very much, Mr. Rizzo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR DOYLE: Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

Mr. Rizzo, just one question. If I have a pool at my house and spring comes, we get it -- I have a pool company that comes and does it for me every year and halfway through the season I go to flip on the lights, they don't work. So I call up my electrician to come in, because I figure it's an electrical issue.

Would they be prevented from working on my pool unless they have a pool (inaudible) license?

AL RIZZO: Our license covers -- first of all, when you build a pool, we have to use a master electrician and master plumber to do any of the work that pertains to their -- under their license.

SENATOR WITKOS: No. My scenario is -- this is after the fact.

AL RIZZO: Once it's after -- once after it's built we are trained to take care of that. My men can go out there and change a light bulb on your underwater light. They can pull a light out and replace the whole light right back to the junction box. We already have that.

SENATOR WITKOS: Excuse me. That wasn't my question to you. Not that -- if your folks are trained to do it. I'm asking you can I call an electrician to come and handle my -- what I perceive to be as a homeowner and electrical issue --

AL RIZZO: Yes, sure.

SENATOR WITKOS: -- without having a pool certification licensed --

AL RIZZO: Yes, definitely. The master electrician, and they can -- we just do a little portion, they can do any portion.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that they were still allowed to do that.

AL RIZZO: You're not stepping on toes of any master plumbers or electricians.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you. And we have the language and we'll talk the legal. Thank you.

The next speaker is Glenn Marshall.

AL RIZZO: I'm sorry, you must have missed Ray.

SENATOR DOYLE: Okay. Ray.

RAYMOND RESCILDO: Is it on?

SENATOR DOYLE: Yes.

RAYMOND RESCILDO: My name is Raymond Rescildo, and I'm here to support Raised Bill 267. I'm going to -- having a little trouble here.

From a practical point of view, I own and operate a small swimming pool company. I run the office but I also get in my truck every day and perform the work.

My typical work day ranges from installing and repairing gas heaters, natural propane, pumps on 220-line voltage, high-pressure plumbing repairs, automated chemical dispensers and anti-entraption devices.

The reason I support 267 is not only the tremendous contribution to public health and safety, I also support it for the confidence it provides me as a micro-business owner like myself.

The trainee program is just a gateway to growth. It's very hard to craft guys and have a template to do it. the clarified scope of work at operations like mine, a template that kind of puts us on par with companies that have dedicated service departments or a safety officer.

I mean, I see this is a real -- this is a gift to a smaller business. It's kind of like giving us a human resource department with the trainee program, and that's why I support it.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you.

Any further questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you.

Glenn Marshall, please. Then Joe Wrinn and there's three people signed under one name, so I guess each has got a minute. But first from (inaudible).

The first one is Glenn Marshall.

GLENN MARSHALL: Good afternoon, Senator Doyle, Representative Baram and members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Glenn Marshall, and I am a business manager for the New England Regional Council of Carpenters in Connecticut, representing thousands of carpenters. I am here today to testify in opposition to Raised Bill 412, AN ACT CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING STATUTES as it is currently written.

Connecticut first enacted licensing laws starting in 1967 to protect the general public's safety. First for plumbers and electricians, and over the following decades for other crafts such as sheet metal workers and glazers.

In fact, we are one of the only states that has licensing for glazers. As more and more trades have attained licenses, we have seen a rise in jurisdictional problems on job sites. Some trades are using their licensed status as a means to grab work and claim jurisdiction from non-licensed crafts such as carpenters.

There are many examples on record, and a few years ago one of our contractors spent in excess of $100,000 defending themselves.

There are many conflicts and issues with the way this bill is currently written, and I will give a few examples.

Cease work orders for individuals who perform work without a license is a problem because there are many gray areas or overlap of work between licensed and unlicensed crafts.

The proposed language states that either the commissioner or the board can either jointly or separately issue a cease work order. There is a potential conflict if the commissioner and the board are in disagreement as to whether a violation has occurred or not.

Who makes the final determination? I believe that the commissioner should make the final decision with the advice of the board for sake of consistency.

The board members' terms, by statute, expire every four years, which can lead to turnover and inconsistent decisions being rendered. And although the commissioner's term may be short as well, they rely on the recommendations of their managers, who have an historical institutional knowledge of the industry.

As an ex-commissioner, I can attest to this myself. Also, negligently is being added too willfully to determine someone's culpability of working without a license. Willful is a much higher standard than negligent, so it can't be both.

We prefer to see it left as just willful, as someone can make an honest mistake.

In closing, we would be supportive of more enforcement agents being added to help the depleted staff enforce the current licensing laws, but we are opposed to the changes that are in this bill as they currently are written.

We look forward to working with the committee and the leadership on substitute language to address our concerns and others in the industry.

I want to thank you all for your time and your consideration and I would gladly answer any questions.

SENATOR DOYLE: Thank you very much.

I would ask if you have copies of your substitute language, to make sure our legal counsel receives that.

Any questions from the committee?

Representative Aman?

REP. AMAN: Yeah. Looking at it, it talks about the violations and says any person. Just to be clear, is that a person, and individual, or a company that has people working for them that aren't being licensed?

GLENN MARSHALL: It's referring to an individual.

REP. AMAN: Okay. And it's willfully or is that -- if someone doesn't have their license with them because it's laying on their dresser at home, they're willfully not having it with them. Is that how you would interpret that?

GLENN MARSHALL: I guess it could be. Willful is a higher standard. Negligently has been added to it, so there you have a conflict too. Is it willful or is it negligent? Negligent is less -- it's a lower standard.

So if it was negligent, and you have in the bill that the enforcement agent shall within 48 hours issue a cease work, they're going to probably be more inclined for that individual that you just referred to to stop them from working.

And then the process would start. It could take a long time for that individual to go back to work.

REP. AMAN: That's one of my concerns, the way the language is written is that you have the individual on the job and for whatever reason if he stays there a stop work order is going to be issued. The contractor is going to immediately dismiss that person, hire someone else to do the job.

Earlier today we heard that it could be three, four weeks before a hearing was held, and it doesn't seem like the person that was dismissed from the job has got any real recourse at that point other than going a month without pay.

Is that a scenario that the carpenters are concerned about?

GLENN MARSHALL: Absolutely. Because, as I said, you know, most people when asked the question do you want to see somebody doing electrical or plumbing without a license? No. You don't want to see anybody get hurt or the public.

But there is gray areas. The semantics of the existing statutes sometimes are twisted, and people that are out there doing the work, you know, contractors don't know. And, you know, a licensing person or a trades person shows up and says hey, you got carpenters putting louvers in. We think that's licensable.

Louvers are a generic term. You could put them on homes and a gable ends. They're made out of wood. Or they could be part of a balanced system, which then would be licensable.

So there's architectural louvers and there's part of the system with louvers. Sometimes in the past we've had situations. The contractor that I alluded to, you know, had a similar situation and then had to defend himself.

Usually the institutional knowledge that the enforcement agents that are within DCP, they've been around a long time so they know how to deal these. Our concern is an unlicensed craft is you could have carpenters doing something that they've been doing historically that really at the end of the day might not be licensed.

But if an enforcement agent feels pressure because the bill says he shall shut them down within 48 hours, he's going to look to cover himself and then it's those individuals who could be harmed.

REP. AMAN: Again, I'm looking for the change in language when the bill comes out, because right now I don't see how this is going to be really workable and I see some of the poor guys doing the work themselves as the ones that are going to be caught in the middle, as various trade unions are starting to have disputes.

The trade union leaders are fine. The person on the job is sitting there for a month without a paycheck. That bothers me.

GLENN MARSHALL: Yeah. I think we could work this out, but the language has to be the right language, and we talked to Representative (Inaudible) about, you know, trying to get to that point, but we do have concerns as it's currently written.

REP. BARAM: Thank you.