JOURNAL OF THE SENATE

Monday, June 25, 2018

The Senate was called to order at 12: 14 p. m. , Senator Looney of the 11th in the Chair.

The prayer was offered by Acting Chaplain, Timothy Kehoe of East Hartford, Connecticut.

The following is the prayer:

Please grant our hearts grace as we come together for our deliberations. As we face many needs and challenges, give us the ability to be judicious.

PLEDGE

Senator Fasano led the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

RECONVENING

2018 REGULAR SESSION OF

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Whereas, the 2018 Regular Session General Assembly adjourned on May 9, 2018; in accordance with the Constitution of Connecticut, and

Whereas, the Governor has disapproved a bill passed by the 2018 Regular Session of the General Assembly and has transmitted same to the Secretary of the State with his objections; and

Whereas, said bills were not reconsidered by the General Assembly or was so disapproved by the Governor after said adjournment;

Now Therefore, as required by Article Third of the Amendments to the Constitution of Connecticut, I hereby call the 2018 Regular Session of the General Assembly to reconvene in session at Hartford on Monday, June 25, 2018 at ten o'clock in the morning, for a period not to exceed three days following such reconvening, for the sole purpose of reconsidering and, if the General Assembly so desires, repassing said bill.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the State at the City of Hartford, this 19th day of June, 2018.

Denise W. Merrill

Secretary of the State

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE

VETO MESSAGES FROM THE GOVERNOR

The following communications were received from the Honorable Denise W. Merrill Secretary of the State, on the dates indicated, read by the Clerk and ordered printed in the Journal.

June 1, 2018

The Honorable Denise W. Merrill

Secretary of the State

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Madam Secretary:

I hereby return, without my signature, Substitute House Bill 5171, An Act Prohibiting the Executive Branch From Making Rescissions or Other Reductions to the Education Cost Sharing Grant During the Fiscal Year. This bill would prevent any future governor from making rescissions to certain municipal grants without regard to communities' relative need or ability to fund their own spending decisions, and without regard to the seriousness of a financial emergency in the state. In doing so, it would help the wealthiest cities, towns, and residents at the expense of the poorest.

It is understandable that legislators wish to provide more certainty to the municipalities and school districts that they represent. This bill, however, takes a misguided approach. If the legislature wishes to provide additional stability and predictability to cities and towns in formulating their budgets, the best way to do so is to pass a state budget that identifies specific savings or additional revenue to pay for the level of assistance it wishes to provide. Unfortunately, when the legislature does not do so, but instead includes unspecified savings targets amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, the executive branch must take a balanced approach to cut spending where necessary and preserve funding where more cuts would devastate critical services. No governor can do otherwise.

I have consistently advocated for budgetary policies that provide stability and predictability. When Education Cost Sharing (ECS) funds were withheld in the current fiscal year, it was first because there was no enacted budget for four months, and spending was limited to funding available, without revenue adjustments. And the funds continued to be withheld because of the unprecedented savings – $881 million – demanded by the enacted budget without offsetting revenue or cuts. Indeed, throughout 2017, I advocated for a different type of targeted aid, one that recognized municipalities' ability to pay and their level of need.

It is undisputable that our current distribution methods for state aid to local governments favor our most affluent communities. This is even more egregiously true if we consider the more than $1 billion in state support for local teacher pensions that is provided with no consideration of ability to pay. Substitute House Bill 5171 is designed to ensure that the gains made by our richest towns are secured forever, at the expense of our neediest communities and their residents. This is not only inequitable and wrong, it is also shortsighted, as it nurtures the vicious cycle of urban fiscal distress that threatens our urban centers with insolvency and leaves them little ability to grow our economy. For Connecticut to succeed during the coming years of fiscal recovery, we must abandon our penchant for protecting the comfortable at the expense of our poor and our cities.

For all of these reasons, I disapprove of Substitute House Bill 5171, An Act Prohibiting the Executive Branch From Making Rescissions or Other Reductions to the Education Cost Sharing Grant During the Fiscal Year. Pursuant to Section 15 of Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Substitute House Bill 5171 without my signature.

Sincerely,

Dannel P. Malloy

Governor

June 13, 2018

The Honorable Denise W. Merrill

Secretary of State

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Madam Secretary:

I hereby return, without my signature, Senate Bill 188, An Act Establishing the State Oversight Council on Children and Families. This bill reconstitutes the State Advisory Council on Children and Families (DCF) and renames it the State Oversight Council on Children and Families (“Oversight Council”). The Oversight Council replaces an existing executive branch advisory council with a body that is legislative and whose responsibilities are to oversee the operations of an executive branch agency. The bill also mandates that the Oversight Council monitor the agency budget track and evaluate all DCF policies and progress, including the requirement to implement the recommendations of the Oversight Council.

An earlier version of this legislation, negotiated and agreed to between my administration and committee leadership of the Committee on Children, struck an appropriate balance between legislative oversight and executive branch authority. However, the bill as amended by Senate Amendment A, represents a significant intrusion by the legislative branch into the functioning and administrative authority of an executive branch agency in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Massameno v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 234 Conn. 539, 551-52, 663 A. 2d 317 (1995).

The doctrine recognizes the roles of each branch of government and that executive, legislative and judicial authority are not mutually exclusive, and of necessity overlap with each other. The reach into executive branch functions evidenced by this bill “…threaten[s] to undermine, either the independence and integrity of one of the branches . . . or the ability of each to fulfill its mission in checking the others so as to preserve the interdependence without which independence can become domination. " (Emphasis in original. ) L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d Ed. 1988) 2-2, p. 18.

Senate Bill 188 represents significant interference with the orderly conduct of the essential functions of the executive branch. See Bartholomew v. Schweizer, 217 Conn. 671, 676, 587 A. 2d 1014 (1991). First, the bill establishes a legislatively controlled council that would govern the subject matter of child welfare in Connecticut. Second, the bill does not merely provide a report as to the adherence to DCF policy or statutory requirements, nor the progress of DCF in meeting its mission, but rather it micro-manages the operations of DCF. The Council is mandated to monitor, track and evaluate the policies and practices of DCF with respect to safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children and youths, including, but not limited to, policies and practices of the department that span its entire child welfare responsibility. Third, the bill, as it was amended, infringes on the executive branch authority and responsibility to make and execute decisions with respect to operational and fiscal management thereby violating the independence of the executive branch. The Council is to make recommendations on the agency budget to the Appropriations and Children's Committees, as well as ensure that DCF has implemented, as required, its recommendations.

DCF has hundreds of policies promulgated and revised frequently to conform to legislation at the federal level and national best practices; it would be difficult for an Oversight Council comprised of appointed volunteers to be informed and responsive to the degree needed to fulfill the obligations established by this legislation. Nor will it yield any benefit to the vulnerable children and families served by the Department.

Finally, the Department of Children and Families is subject to some the most exhaustive forms of oversight compared to any other state agency, including by the Office of the Child Advocate. There is also legislative oversight by the General Assembly's Committee on Children as well as 34 legislatively mandated reports. In addition, as Connecticut's child welfare agency, DCF has extensive federal oversight by the U. S. Administration for Children and Families. And since 1991, the Department has been under federal court oversight pursuant to the Juan F. Consent Decree; however, this administration has seen significant improvement and recognition of DCF's progress in moving Connecticut closer to ending this oversight. On December 13, 2017, the U. S. District Court approved a new agreement to the Juan F. Consent Decree that will ensure adequate staffing and streamline outcome measures that make ending the 26-year-litigation far more achievable in the near future with an exit plan that recognizes the significant progress made by the department (reducing 23 measures actively measured to 6). The new plan also will allow DCF to focus efforts on case planning and better meeting the physical and mental health needs of children in the care of the Department. This bill would divert the Department's focus by requiring it to respond to significant information and data requests to comply with the Oversight Council mandate, including any information and data the council deems relevant.

I would urge the proponents to adopt a revised version of this bill, consistent with the draft agreed upon, that would avoid violating the separation of powers that insures a check and balance against overreach by the co-equal branches. For these reasons, I disapprove of Substitute Senate Bill 188, An Act Establishing the State Oversight Council on Children and Families. Pursuant to Section 15 of Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Senate Bill 188 without my signature.

Sincerely,

Dannel P. Malloy

Governor

June 14, 2018

The Honorable Denise W. Merrill

Secretary of the State

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Madam Secretary:

I hereby return, without my signature, Substitute Senate Bill No. 528, An Act Concerning State Contract Assistance Provided to Certain Municipalities. This bill makes significant, detrimental changes to the Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB) authority and operations as established in Public Act 17-2 of the June Special Session, now codified in Chapter 117, Secs. 7-560 through 579 of the 2018 supplement to the general statutes with respect to municipalities that receive a Tier III or IV designation.

As Governor, I have consistently argued that Connecticut's current distribution methods for state aid to local governments strongly favor our most affluent communities and therefore harm our state's less affluent, urban communities. We know that some communities are disfavored

through poor funding of PILOTs despite concentration of state property, colleges, hospitals, and non-profits, and face constrained funding for education despite the acute needs of their students. When these structural forces push these communities to the brink, the state needs to step in as we did in Hartford, and as we have done for Bridgeport, Waterbury, West Haven and other communities in the past.

It is clear that Substitute Senate Bill 528 is a reflection of indignation on the part of some legislators that MARB exercised its statutory authority in coming to the aid of our capital city. However, I believe it is critical that the state have a viable mechanism in place to allow it to intervene in the case of other troubled municipalities in a way that is both effective and that holds those municipalities highly accountable. The MARB statute provides just such a framework. It is workable, it is working, and it should be left alone.

Currently, MARB is comprised of legislative and gubernatorial appointments and co-chaired by the OPM Secretary and the State Treasurer. The law allows for increasing degrees of oversight for municipalities depending on their designated Tier, up to and including allowing MARB to pre-empt collective bargaining binding arbitration statutes and impose a budget on a municipality that has failed to adopt one that meets the requirements of the Board.

At present, two municipalities – Hartford and West Haven – are designated as Tier III under MARB's purview. In this penultimate tier, these communities are required to seek MARB approval of labor agreements and budget assumptions, and to receive comment from the Board on their overall budget and on any non-labor contract over $50,000. As Tier III communities, they are eligible to receive funds from the state budget for municipal restructuring, provided that MARB first approves a multi-year fiscal recovery plan. Hartford has obtained such approval, and MARB has recommended a grant of $20 million for FY 2018 and none for FY 2019. West Haven has recently submitted a plan, which is currently under review by MARB. West Haven has requested $8 million in each of FY 2018 and FY 2019. The MARB has considered moving each of these communities into Tier IV but has not taken action to do that at this point.

Current law also allows the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and the State Treasurer to enter into contract assistance with such designated municipalities (this tool allowed the state to stave off bankruptcy for Hartford earlier this year). This bill would change the provisions of Sec. 7-576j in several detrimental ways: it would require the legislature's Appropriations Committee and Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee to approve a debt service assistance contract before it can be executed. This requirement is onerous given the lack of timelines in the statute and extreme difficulty of achieving support in committees that have historically demanded that any benefit be provided equally to all communities. While it may seem “unfair” that a deeply troubled community gets a lifeline, the real unfairness would be to foreclose other communities from this option if their circumstances demand it in the future.

The bill would also reduce state aid to a municipality in year six of contract assistance, but that could occur sooner under certain circumstances. The legislature may elect to offset contract assistance to Hartford in the future, and must approve state aid amounts for all communities. But it makes little sense to make an out year reduction without giving the program the opportunity to see results before imposing what amounts to a sanction.

The bill further requires additional MARB reporting to the Governor and the Appropriations Committee on the amount of funds needed by the Municipal Restructuring Fund for financial assistance for designated Tier II, III and IV municipalities with an approved restructuring plan. The Appropriations Committee and Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee must hold a joint hearing on the recommendations and make its own recommendation to MARB and the legislature. The legislature also must approve the total amount of annual state aid to Tier III and Tier IV municipalities, and consider MARB's recommendations about maintaining the funding level of the Municipal Restructuring Fund. It authorizes the legislature's Appropriations Committee and Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee to recommend that the legislature designate a Tier III municipality as Tier IV under certain conditions. All of these actions are permitted by existing statutes, committees presumably will already take those appropriate steps to consider out-year funding requirements, and may make recommendations to MARB. Indeed the MARB includes a number of legislative appointments who can ensure that legislative recommendations are considered.

For these reasons, I disapprove Substitute Senate Bill No. 528, An Act Concerning State Contract Assistance Provided to Certain Municipalities. Pursuant to Sect 15 Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Substitute Senate Bill 528 without my signature.


Federal oversight by the U
. S. Administration for Children and Families includes, but not limited to: Child and Families Services Reviews (CFSR), Title IV-E reviews; the Community Mental Health Block Grant (CMHBG), the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARs), the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), and the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS).

Sincerely,

Dannel P. Malloy

Governor

June 14, 2018

The Honorable Denise W. Merrill

Secretary of the State

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Madam Secretary:

I hereby return, without my signature, Substitute Senate Bill No. 528, An Act Concerning State Contract Assistance Provided to Certain Municipalities. This bill makes significant, detrimental changes to the Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB) authority and operations as established in Public Act 17-2 of the June Special Session, now codified in Chapter 117, Secs. 7-560 through 579 of the 2018 supplement to the general statutes with respect to municipalities that receive a Tier III or IV designation.

As Governor, I have consistently argued that Connecticut's current distribution methods for state aid to local governments strongly favor our most affluent communities and therefore harm our state's less affluent, urban communities. We know that some communities are disfavored through poor funding of PILOTs despite concentration of state property, colleges, hospitals, and non-profits, and face constrained funding for education despite the acute needs of their students. When these structural forces push these communities to the brink, the state needs to step in as we did in Hartford, and as we have done for Bridgeport, Waterbury, West Haven and other communities in the past.

It is clear that Substitute Senate Bill 528 is a reflection of indignation on the part of some legislators that MARB exercised its statutory authority in coming to the aid of our capital city. However, I believe it is critical that the state have a viable mechanism in place to allow it to intervene in the case of other troubled municipalities in a way that is both effective and that holds those municipalities highly accountable. The MARB statute provides just such a framework. It is workable, it is working, and it should be left alone.

Currently, MARB is comprised of legislative and gubernatorial appointments and co-chaired by the OPM Secretary and the State Treasurer. The law allows for increasing degrees of oversight for municipalities depending on their designated Tier, up to and including allowing MARB to pre-empt collective bargaining binding arbitration statutes and impose a budget on a municipality that has failed to adopt one that meets the requirements of the Board.

At present, two municipalities – Hartford and West Haven – are designated as Tier III under MARB's purview. In this penultimate tier, these communities are required to seek MARB approval of labor agreements and budget assumptions, and to receive comment from the Board on their overall budget and on any non-labor contract over $50,000. As Tier III communities, they are eligible to receive funds from the state budget for municipal restructuring, provided that MARB first approves a multi-year fiscal recovery plan. Hartford has obtained such approval, and MARB has recommended a grant of $20 million for FY 2018 and none for FY 2019. West Haven has recently submitted a plan, which is currently under review by MARB. West Haven has requested $8 million in each of FY 2018 and FY 2019. The MARB has considered moving each of these communities into Tier IV but has not taken action to do that at this point.

Current law also allows the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and the State Treasurer to enter into contract assistance with such designated municipalities (this tool allowed the state to stave off bankruptcy for Hartford earlier this year). This bill would change the provisions of Sec. 7-576j in several detrimental ways: it would require the legislature's Appropriations Committee and Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee to approve a debt service assistance contract before it can be executed. This requirement is onerous given the lack of timelines in the statute and extreme difficulty of achieving support in committees that have historically demanded that any benefit be provided equally to all communities. While it may seem “unfair” that a deeply troubled community gets a lifeline, the real unfairness would be to foreclose other communities from this option if their circumstances demand it in the future.

The bill would also reduce state aid to a municipality in year six of contract assistance, but that could occur sooner under certain circumstances. The legislature may elect to offset contract assistance to Hartford in the future, and must approve state aid amounts for all communities. But it makes little sense to make an out year reduction without giving the program the opportunity to see results before imposing what amounts to a sanction.

The bill further requires additional MARB reporting to the Governor and the Appropriations Committee on the amount of funds needed by the Municipal Restructuring Fund for financial assistance for designated Tier II, III and IV municipalities with an approved restructuring plan. The Appropriations Committee and Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee must hold a joint hearing on the recommendations and make its own recommendation to MARB and the legislature. The legislature also must approve the total amount of annual state aid to Tier III and Tier IV municipalities, and consider MARB's recommendations about maintaining the funding level of the Municipal Restructuring Fund. It authorizes the legislature's Appropriations Committee and Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee to recommend that the legislature designate a Tier III municipality as Tier IV under certain conditions. All of these actions are permitted by existing statutes, committees presumably will already take those appropriate steps to consider out-year funding requirements, and may make recommendations to MARB. Indeed the MARB includes a number of legislative appointments who can ensure that legislative recommendations are considered.

For these reasons, I disapprove Substitute Senate Bill No. 528, An Act Concerning State Contract Assistance Provided to Certain Municipalities. Pursuant to Sect 15 Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Substitute Senate Bill 528 without my signature.

Sincerely,

Dannel P. Malloy

Governor

June 7, 2018

The Honorable Denise W. Merrill

Secretary of the State

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Madam Secretary:

I hereby return, without my signature, Substitute House Bill 5426, An Act Concerning Election Day Registration Locations. This bill allows for the town clerk to designate a municipality's election day registration location in the event that the registrars of voters of said municipality fail to agree on a location by the thirty-first day prior to election day.

While I understand the reasons behind this proposal and the logistical hurdles that municipalities face, I cannot support it. The bedrock of our electoral system is the election of two registrars of voters, one from each major party, to oversee each other. This balance provides the public with confidence that our elections are administered freely and fairly and without the undue influence of politics. Allowing a third municipal official, who is also a partisan elected official in the overwhelming number of instances in our state, tilts the scales in favor of that official's political party and potentially leads to the destruction of public faith in our electoral system.

In this day and age when political calculation appears to the public to permeate every decision government officials make, from the scourge of gerrymandering to biased voter roll purges, we simply cannot afford to give this authority to a single partisan official with no oversight whatsoever. If there is truly an intractable disagreement between the registrars of voters, the decision should be placed before the elected legislative body of the municipality or, in the absence of such a body, before the courts for a truly impartial and transparent resolution.

For this reason, I disapprove of Substitute House Bill 5426, An Act Concerning Election Day Registration Locations. Pursuant to Section 15 of Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Substitute House Bill 5426 without my signature.

Sincerely,

Dannel P. Malloy

Governor

June 14, 2018

The Honorable Denise W. Merrill

Secretary of the State

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Madam Secretary:

I hereby return, without my signature, Substitute Senate Bill No. 523, An Act Concerning An Animal Abuse Registry. This bill would require the establishment and maintenance of a registry of all persons convicted of committing a crime involving animal abuse. Further, it adds a new class D felony for individuals who fail to register or who fail to timely notify authorities of name and address changes.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), an organization dedicated to preventing cruelty to and protecting animals, opposed this legislation and requested that this legislation be vetoed because it could have costly unintended consequences and in fact leave animals more vulnerable to abuse. The ASPCA cites studies concluding that registries result in an increase in plea bargains to reduced charges specifically to allow an individual to avoid registration. In the two states with animal abuse registries there are very few registrants (14 in Tennessee and fewer than 20 on New York registries).

Cruelty to animals is a serious issue and individuals found guilty of cruelty to animals should receive appropriate punishment. I do not believe that an animal abuse registry accomplishes this goal. There is no conclusive evidence that on-line registries protect the public and in fact, such registries have unfortunately had the opposite effect. That is why the Sentencing Commission has recommended reforms to Connecticut's current registry for sex offenders to address these very issues. Registries frequently create barriers to employment, housing and other services, the necessary basic tools, such as employment, housing and other services, that enable offenders to be rehabilitated and which are proven building blocks in reducing recidivism. Together we have enacted common sense policy initiatives to reduce recidivism and we are seeing positive results.

Lastly, the establishment and maintenance of registries require significant resources to ensure accuracy and avoid reporting an individual in error. The budget enacted by the General Assembly does not provide resources to accomplish the requirements of this legislation.

For these reasons, I disapprove of Substitute Senate Bill No. 523, An Act Concerning An Animal Abuse Registry. Pursuant to Sect 15 Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Substitute Senate Bill 523 without my signature.

Sincerely,

Dannel P. Malloy

Governor

June 6, 2018

The Honorable Denise W. Merrill

Secretary of the State

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Madam Secretary:

I hereby return, without my signature, Senate Bill No. 261, An Act Extending the Manufacturing Apprenticeship Tax Credit to Pass-Through Entities. This bill would allow owners or shareholders of pass-through entities such as S corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies to claim the manufacturing apprenticeship tax credit against the personal income tax.

This bill, while ostensibly helpful to small businesses, would allow individual business owners and shareholders to reduce their individual personal tax liability, potentially to zero. That is the same flaw I pointed out when I vetoed a similar bill in 2016. This bill would result in a loss of $650,000 in revenue per year, an impact not accounted for in the amended budget I signed earlier this year. While I have steadfastly supported and initiated efforts to encourage more hiring in the technology and manufacturing sectors, such efforts should not be used to shield individual investors from paying their fair share for state services, especially when the cost is not offset by spending cuts or other revenue.

Under current law, entities that are unable to use manufacturing apprenticeship tax credits themselves because they are not subject to the corporation business tax may sell them to other entities that have sufficient liability to use them, providing income directly to the entities we want to help, rather than shielding the income of wealthy individuals. Current law also imposes reasonable limits on a corporation's total reduction in its tax liability through the use of tax credits, providing a degree of predictability and stability. Senate Bill No. 261 would instead allow individual partners in, or shareholders of, pass-through entities to claim the tax credits on their personal income tax returns, without any limit on the amount of reduction in their tax liability.

While this bill may have been passed to help small businesses owners, it would also allow owners of large, complex institutions to greatly reduce their personal income tax liability without limits, instead of providing the benefits where they will create jobs – in small businesses themselves. United States Department of Treasury revealed recently that only about 10 percent of pass-through entities were small businesses with employees. Larger, wealthier pass-through entities have recently received federal tax gifts from the Republican-controlled Congress in the form of rate cuts and increased deductions, and they don't need more help from Connecticut's taxpayers. A much more precisely targeted bill, with limits on the total deduction, could help these taxpayers and drive small-business investment without creating a windfall for those who need it least.

Allowing business tax credits to be claimed against the personal income tax would also open the door for other similar proposals and increase the likelihood that the credits will result in additional revenue loss to the state. In addition, the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) will incur a significant unbudgeted expense to implement this change on tax forms and in the Taxpayer Service Center.

As I indicated in my 2016 veto message, I stand ready, should there be an opportunity in the coming months, to work with the proponents of the bill to pass a version of this legislation that promotes investment in small businesses, includes a reasonable limit on individual tax liability, and offsets the significant lost revenue, but I cannot support this legislation as written.

For the foregoing reasons, I disapprove of Senate Bill 261, An Act Extending the Manufacturing Apprenticeship Tax Credit to Pass-Through Entities. Pursuant to Section 15 of Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Substitute Senate Bill 261 without my signature.

Sincerely,

Dannel P. Malloy

Governor

INTRODUCTION OF

SENATE RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION ADOPTED

The following resolution was introduced, read and adopted.

S. R. No. 51 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE RULES OF THE SENATE FOR THE RECONVENED SESSION OF THE 2018 GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Senator Duff of the 25th explained the resolution and moved adoption.

On a voice vote, the Resolution was adopted.

The following is the Resolution:

Resolved by the Senate:

That the rules of the Senate at this reconvened session of the 2018 General Assembly shall be the same as the rules of the Senate in force at the 2018 regular session, except as such rules are amended, altered or repealed in this resolution and by the addition of the following rules, which additional rules are hereby made part of said Senate rules.

Strike out Rule 8 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 8. The clerk shall keep a journal of the Senate and shall enter therein a record of each day's proceedings.

Strike out Rule 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 9. The clerk shall keep a calendar on which he shall enter daily all Senate bills disapproved by the Governor and all bills and joint resolutions received from the House for action.

Strike out Rule 19 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 19. The order of business shall be as follows:

1. Reception of communications from the Governor and Secretary of the State.

2. Introduction of resolutions.

3. Introduction of bills disapproved by the Governor.

4. Reception of business from the House.

5. Business on the Calendar.

6. Introduction of guests.

Strike out Rule 20 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 20. Before any resolution is received, a brief statement of its object shall be made by the introducer.

Strike out Rule 23.

Strike out Rule 29 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 29. When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received except:

1. To adjourn.

2. To recess.

3. For the previous question.

4. To close the debate at a specified time.

5. To pass temporarily.

6. To pass retain.

7. To postpone to a certain time.

Said motions shall have precedence in the order listed in this rule.

Strike out Rule 30.

Add a new Rule 37 as follows:

Rule 37. No substantive resolutions shall be received except for resolutions concerning joint rule 33, and resolutions pertaining to the rules of this reconvened session, the printing of the journals of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the expenses of this reconvened session.

BUSINESS FROM THE HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

The following resolutions were introduced, read and adopted.

H. J. No. 201 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE JOINT RULES OF THE RECONVENED SESSION OF THE 2018 GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Senator Duff of the 25th explained the resolution and moved adoption.

On a voice vote the Resolution was adopted, in concurrence with the House.

The following is the Resolution:

Resolved by this Assembly:

That the joint rules of this reconvened session of the 2018 General Assembly shall be the same as the joint rules in force at the 2018 regular session, except as said rules are amended, altered or repealed in this resolution and by the addition of the following rules, which additional rules are hereby made a part of the joint rules of this reconvened session.

Strike out Rules 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Strike out Rule 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 7. The reconvened session of the 2018 General Assembly shall be for the sole purpose of reconsidering bills approved by the 2018 General Assembly and disapproved by the Governor. Except as provided in joint rule 33, no substantive resolutions shall be received other than those pertaining to the rules applicable to this reconvened session and the printing of the journals of the Senate and House of Representatives and the expenses of this reconvened session. The reconvened session shall adjourn sine die not later than midnight, June 28, 2018.

Strike out Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Strike out Rule 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 12. No amendments shall be permitted to any disapproved bill submitted to the reconvened session.

Strike out Rule 13.

Strike out Rule 14 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 14. Each disapproved bill shall be submitted to the chamber of origin for reconsideration. If, after such reconsideration, that chamber shall again pass it, but by the approval of at least two-thirds of the membership, it shall be immediately transmitted with the veto message to the other chamber, which shall also reconsider it. The votes of each chamber shall be determined by the yeas and nays and the names of the members voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journals of each chamber respectively.

Strike out Rules 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.

Strike out Rule 21 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 21. After the time has elapsed for the reconsideration of any vote upon any bill, no resolution or motion to recall such bill from the other chamber shall be allowed for the purposes of reconsideration, except when there has clearly been a mistake in the vote on such bill.

Strike out Rules 22, 23 and 24.

Strike out Rule 25 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 25. The respective clerks of the House and Senate shall immediately notify the Secretary of the State and the Legislative Commissioners of the final action taken on each disapproved bill and its engrossed copy shall bear the notation of such final action and if repassed, the date of final passage.

Strike out Rule 26.

Strike out Rule 27 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Rule 27. The official copies of all disapproved bills repassed by the General Assembly shall be delivered to the Secretary of the State.

Strike out Rules 31, 32 and 34.

H. J. No. 202 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE EXPENSES OF THE RECONVENED SESSION OF THE 2018 GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Senator Duff of the 25th explained the resolution and moved adoption.

On a voice vote the Resolution was adopted, in concurrence with the House.

The following is the Resolution:

Resolved by this Assembly:

That the Joint Committee on Legislative Management is authorized to pay the necessary expenses of this reconvened session of the 2018 General Assembly.

H. J. No. 203 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE PRINTING OF THE JOURNALS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE RECONVENED SESSION OF THE 2018 GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Senator Duff of the 25th explained the resolution and moved adoption.

On a voice vote the Resolution was adopted, in concurrence with the House.

The following is the Resolution:

Resolved by this Assembly:

That the journals of the proceedings of the Senate and House of Representatives at this reconvened session shall be printed as provided in section 2-49 of the general statutes with the journals of the February 2018 session of the General Assembly.

BILLS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR

RECONSIDERATION UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 15

OF THE CONSTITUTION

MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER

MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER ADOPTED

VETOES SUSTAINED

COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN. Substitute for S. B. No. 188 (RAISED) (File No. 92) AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE STATE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. (As amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A"). PA 18-140

Senator Fasano of the 34th who was on the prevailing side of the vote for passage moved for reconsideration of the bill.

On a voice vote the motion was adopted.

Senator Fasano of the 34th moved re-passage.

Remarking were Senators Fasano of the 34th and Duff of the 25th.

The chair ordered the vote be taken by roll call.

The following is the result of the vote at 12: 30 p. m. :

Total Number Voting 31

Necessary for Adoption 24

Those voting Yea 16

Those voting Nay 15

Those absent and not voting 5

On the roll call vote, the motion to re-pass Senate Bill No. 188 PA 18-140 failed.

The following is the roll call vote:

   

N

1

JOHN W. FONFARA

   

N

19

CATHERINE A. OSTEN

   

N

2

DOUGLAS MCCRORY

 

Y

 

20

PAUL M. FORMICA

   

N

3

TIM LARSON

 

Y

 

21

KEVIN KELLY

   

N

4

STEVE CASSANO

   

N

22

MARILYN MOORE

   

N

5

BETH BYE

   

N

23

EDWIN A. GOMES

A

   

6

TERRY B. GERRATANA

 

Y

 

24

MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN

 

Y

 

7

JOHN A. KISSEL

   

N

25

BOB DUFF

 

Y

 

8

KEVIN D. WITKOS

 

Y

 

26

TONI BOUCHER

   

N

9

PAUL DOYLE

A

   

27

CARLO LEONE

   

N

10

GARY WINFIELD

 

Y

 

28

TONY HWANG

   

N

11

MARTIN M. LOONEY

   

N

29

MAE M. FLEXER

A

   

12

TED KENNEDY

 

Y

 

30

CRAIG MINER

A

   

13

LEN SUZIO

A

   

31

HENRI MARTIN

   

N

14

GAYLE SLOSSBERG

 

Y

 

32

ERIC BERTHEL

   

N

15

JOAN V. HARTLEY

 

Y

 

33

ART LINARES

 

Y

 

16

JOE MARKLEY

 

Y

 

34

LEONARD FASANO

 

Y

 

17

GEORGE LOGAN

 

Y

 

35

ANTHONY GUGLIELMO

 

Y

 

18

HEATHER SOMERS

 

Y

 

36

L. SCOTT FRANTZ

EDUCATION. Substitute for S. B. No. 453 (RAISED) (File No. 480) AN ACT CONCERNING CLASSROOM SAFETY AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR. (As amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A"). PA 18-89

Senator Fasano of the 34th who was on the prevailing side of the vote for passage moved for reconsideration of the bill.

On a voice vote the motion was adopted.

Senator Fasano of the 34th moved re-passage.

Remarking were Senators Boucher of the 26th, Bye of the 5th, Slossberg of the 14th, Cassano of the 4th, Winfield of the 10th, Moore of the 22nd and Duff of the 25th.

The chair ordered the vote be taken by roll call.

The following is the result of the vote at 12: 52 p. m. :

Total Number Voting 31

Necessary for Adoption 24

Those voting Yea 14

Those voting Nay 17

Those absent and not voting 5

On the roll call vote, the motion to re-pass Senate Bill No. 453 PA 18-89 failed.

The following is the roll call vote:

   

N

1

JOHN W. FONFARA

   

N

19

CATHERINE A. OSTEN

   

N

2

DOUGLAS MCCRORY

 

Y

 

20

PAUL M. FORMICA

   

N

3

TIM LARSON

 

Y

 

21

KEVIN KELLY

   

N

4

STEVE CASSANO

   

N

22

MARILYN MOORE

   

N

5

BETH BYE

   

N

23

EDWIN A. GOMES

A

   

6

TERRY B. GERRATANA

 

Y

 

24

MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN

 

Y

 

7

JOHN A. KISSEL

   

N

25

BOB DUFF

 

Y

 

8

KEVIN D. WITKOS

   

N

26

TONI BOUCHER

   

N

9

PAUL DOYLE

A

   

27

CARLO LEONE

   

N

10

GARY WINFIELD

 

Y

 

28

TONY HWANG

   

N

11

MARTIN M. LOONEY

   

N

29

MAE M. FLEXER

A

   

12

TED KENNEDY

 

Y

 

30

CRAIG MINER

A

   

13

LEN SUZIO

A

   

31

HENRI MARTIN

   

N

14

GAYLE SLOSSBERG

 

Y

 

32

ERIC BERTHEL

   

N

15

JOAN V. HARTLEY

 

Y

 

33

ART LINARES

 

Y

 

16

JOE MARKLEY

 

Y

 

34

LEONARD FASANO

   

N

17

GEORGE LOGAN

 

Y

 

35

ANTHONY GUGLIELMO

 

Y

 

18

HEATHER SOMERS

 

Y

 

36

L. SCOTT FRANTZ

FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING. S. B. No. 528 (RAISED) (File No. 557) AN ACT CONCERNING STATE CONTRACT ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES. (As amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "B"). PA 18-157

Senator Fasano of the 34th who was on the prevailing side of the vote for passage moved for reconsideration of the bill.

On a voice vote the motion was adopted.

Senator Fasano of the 34th explained the bill and moved re-passage.

Remarking were Senators Frantz of the 36th and Boucher of the 26th.

The chair ordered the vote be taken by roll call.

The following is the result of the vote at 1: 02 p. m. :

Total Number Voting 31

Necessary for Adoption 24

Those voting Yea 17

Those voting Nay 14

Those absent and not voting 5

On the roll call vote, the motion to re-pass Senate Bill No. 528 PA 18-157 failed.

The following is the roll call vote:

   

N

1

JOHN W. FONFARA

   

N

19

CATHERINE A. OSTEN

   

N

2

DOUGLAS MCCRORY

 

Y

 

20

PAUL M. FORMICA

   

N

3

TIM LARSON

 

Y

 

21

KEVIN KELLY

   

N

4

STEVE CASSANO

   

N

22

MARILYN MOORE

   

N

5

BETH BYE

   

N

23

EDWIN A. GOMES

A

   

6

TERRY B. GERRATANA

 

Y

 

24

MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN

 

Y

 

7

JOHN A. KISSEL

   

N

25

BOB DUFF

 

Y

 

8

KEVIN D. WITKOS

 

Y

 

26

TONI BOUCHER

   

N

9

PAUL DOYLE

A

   

27

CARLO LEONE

   

N

10

GARY WINFIELD

 

Y

 

28

TONY HWANG

   

N

11

MARTIN M. LOONEY

 

Y

 

29

MAE M. FLEXER

A

   

12

TED KENNEDY

 

Y

 

30

CRAIG MINER

A

   

13

LEN SUZIO

A

   

31

HENRI MARTIN

   

N

14

GAYLE SLOSSBERG

 

Y

 

32

ERIC BERTHEL

   

N

15

JOAN V. HARTLEY

 

Y

 

33

ART LINARES

 

Y

 

16

JOE MARKLEY

 

Y

 

34

LEONARD FASANO

 

Y

 

17

GEORGE LOGAN

 

Y

 

35

ANTHONY GUGLIELMO

 

Y

 

18

HEATHER SOMERS

 

Y

 

36

L. SCOTT FRANTZ

FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING. S. B. No. 261 (RAISED) (File No. 571) AN ACT EXTENDING THE MANUFACTURING APPRENTICESHIP TAX CREDIT TO PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES. PA 18-80

Senator Fasano of the 34th who was on the prevailing side of the vote for passage moved for reconsideration of the bill.

On a voice vote the motion was adopted.

Senator Fasano of the 34th moved re-passage.

Remarking were Senators Frantz of the 36th and Hartley of the 15th.

The chair ordered the vote be taken by roll call.

The following is the result of the vote at 1: 17 p. m. :

Total Number Voting 31

Necessary for Adoption 24

Those voting Yea 18

Those voting Nay 13

Those absent and not voting 5

On the roll call vote, the motion to re-pass Senate Bill No. 261 PA 18-80 failed.

The following is the roll call vote:

   

N

1

JOHN W. FONFARA

   

N

19

CATHERINE A. OSTEN

   

N

2

DOUGLAS MCCRORY

 

Y

 

20

PAUL M. FORMICA

   

N

3

TIM LARSON

 

Y

 

21

KEVIN KELLY

   

N

4

STEVE CASSANO

   

N

22

MARILYN MOORE

   

N

5

BETH BYE

   

N

23

EDWIN A. GOMES

A

   

6

TERRY B. GERRATANA

 

Y

 

24

MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN

 

Y

 

7

JOHN A. KISSEL

   

N

25

BOB DUFF

 

Y

 

8

KEVIN D. WITKOS

 

Y

 

26

TONI BOUCHER

   

N

9

PAUL DOYLE

A

   

27

CARLO LEONE

   

N

10

GARY WINFIELD

 

Y

 

28

TONY HWANG

   

N

11

MARTIN M. LOONEY

   

N

29

MAE M. FLEXER

A

   

12

TED KENNEDY

 

Y

 

30

CRAIG MINER

A

   

13

LEN SUZIO

A

   

31

HENRI MARTIN

 

Y

 

14

GAYLE SLOSSBERG

 

Y

 

32

ERIC BERTHEL

 

Y

 

15

JOAN V. HARTLEY

 

Y

 

33

ART LINARES

 

Y

 

16

JOE MARKLEY

 

Y

 

34

LEONARD FASANO

 

Y

 

17

GEORGE LOGAN

 

Y

 

35

ANTHONY GUGLIELMO

 

Y

 

18

HEATHER SOMERS

 

Y

 

36

L. SCOTT FRANTZ

BUSINESS FROM THE HOUSE

BILL VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR

RECONSIDERATION UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 15

OF THE CONSTITUTION

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

MOTION TO RECONSIDER ADOPTED

VETO SUSTAINED

EDUCATION. Substitute for H. B. No. 5171 (RAISED) (File Nos. 142 and 680) AN ACT PROHIBITING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FROM MAKING RESCISSIONS OR OTHER REDUCTIONS TO THE EDUCATION COST SHARING GRANT DURING THE FISCAL YEAR. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A"). PA 18-35

Senator Duff of the 25th who was on the prevailing side of the vote for passage moved for reconsideration of the bill.

On a voice vote the motion was adopted.

Senator Duff of the 25th explained the bill and moved re-passage.

Remarking were Senators Boucher of the 26th, Slossberg of the 14th, Bye of the 5th and Osten of the 19th.

The chair ordered the vote be taken by roll call.

The following is the result of the vote at 2: 06 p. m. :

Total Number Voting 29

Necessary for Adoption 24

Those voting Yea 19

Those voting Nay 10

Those absent and not voting 7

On the roll call vote, the motion to re-pass House Bill No. 5171 PA 18-35 failed.

The following is the roll call vote:

   

N

1

JOHN W. FONFARA

   

N

19

CATHERINE A. OSTEN

   

N

2

DOUGLAS MCCRORY

 

Y

 

20

PAUL M. FORMICA

   

N

3

TIM LARSON

 

Y

 

21

KEVIN KELLY

A

   

4

STEVE CASSANO

   

N

22

MARILYN MOORE

   

N

5

BETH BYE

   

N

23

EDWIN A. GOMES

A

   

6

TERRY B. GERRATANA

A

   

24

MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN

 

Y

 

7

JOHN A. KISSEL

 

Y

 

25

BOB DUFF

 

Y

 

8

KEVIN D. WITKOS

 

Y

 

26

TONI BOUCHER

   

N

9

PAUL DOYLE

A

   

27

CARLO LEONE

   

N

10

GARY WINFIELD

 

Y

 

28

TONY HWANG

 

Y

 

11

MARTIN M. LOONEY

 

Y

 

29

MAE M. FLEXER

A

   

12

TED KENNEDY

 

Y

 

30

CRAIG MINER

A

   

13

LEN SUZIO

A

   

31

HENRI MARTIN

 

Y

 

14

GAYLE SLOSSBERG

 

Y

 

32

ERIC BERTHEL

   

N

15

JOAN V. HARTLEY

 

Y

 

33

ART LINARES

 

Y

 

16

JOE MARKLEY

 

Y

 

34

LEONARD FASANO

 

Y

 

17

GEORGE LOGAN

 

Y

 

35

ANTHONY GUGLIELMO

 

Y

 

18

HEATHER SOMERS

 

Y

 

36

L. SCOTT FRANTZ

MOTION TO ADJOURN SINE DIE

On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 2: 07 p. m. adjourned Sine Die.

ATTEST: Garey E. Coleman

Clerk of the Senate

Hartford, Connecticut

2: 07 o'clock p. m.