American Association of University
Professors – Connecticut State
University Chapter (AAUP-CSU)
2015 Legislative Report
Gallo & Robinson, LLC
June, 2015
Betty Gallo
Kate Robinson
Joe Grabarz
Brie Wolf
1
PREFACE
Before this legislative session even began we were once again faced with
challenges to the CSU System based on a flood of negative publicity surrounding
the Board of Regents. In addition, we faced a State and System budget sinking
further and further into the red. As usual, a lack of System leadership left the
CSUS without a clear legislative program or effective advocacy.
CSU-AAUP and Gallo & Robinson have worked closely together with supportive
legislators to ensure that faculty interests were represented. As in the past several
sessions we saw significant faculty involvement in legislative activity and
deepened relationships with legislators. Visits with individual legislators in their
offices and districts have helped increase awareness of the concerns we have and
the changes we advocate. Numerous and timely action alerts, letters, testimony,
flyers and position papers have all been valuable to our collective efforts.
While we haven’t succeeded in all that we have asked for, we have significantly
impacted legislation in our favor and we have improved the standing of CSUAAUP faculty as a valuable resource in higher education discussions.
The legislation discussed in this report represents a major effort by CSU-AAUP
staff and faculty, Gallo & Robinson staff and supportive legislators to shape events
in favor of CSU-AAUP members and to make the State’s system of public higher
education better for everyone involved.
We have significant opportunities and challenges coming up next session and a
few short months to prepare for them. The two task forces created this session; one
on outcomes based funding and another on textbooks need participation and to be
watched. In addition, the Planning Commission on Higher Education has a
legislative report due in January on outcomes based funding and has several new
duties and responsibilities that make it worth keeping abreast of their activities.
Although there was no action, there was much talk about state employee benefit
give backs this session. The Republican budget proposal was built on significant
state employee give backs and they mentioned this at every opportunity. Towards
the end of the regular session several moderate Democrats were doing the same.
2
This is not necessarily a good atmosphere for contract discussions. It is incumbent
upon us all to keep aware of opportunities to discuss the great job that so many
hardworking faculty do in the CSU System.
We at Gallo & Robinson are proud and pleased to have been a part of this effort
and look forward to working together on future challenges and opportunities.
HB 6812: AN ACT CONCERNING FACULTY REPRESENTATION ON
THE COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF
REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. Passed. Public Act 15-228. Awaiting
Governor’s Signature.
The bill as passed allows the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Board of
Regents for Higher Education's (BOR) faculty advisory committee (FAC), who
serve as nonvoting, ex-officio members of BOR, to attend BOR executive sessions
at the BOR chairperson's invitation. Current law excludes them from all executive
sessions.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee at our request after meetings with the Co-Chairs of the Committee,
Rep. Roberta Willis (D-Salisbury) and Sen. Dante Bartolomeo (D-Meriden). It was
co-sponsored by Rep. Hilda Santiago (D-Meriden), Sen. Steve Cassano (DManchester), Sen. Joe Crisco (D-Woodbridge), Sen. Eric Coleman (DBloomfield), and Sen. Mae Flexer (D-Killingly).
The bill as originally drafted expanded the role of faculty members serving on the
Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR). It required that the chairperson and
vice-chairperson of BOR's faculty advisory committee, who serve as nonvoting, exofficio members on BOR, be allowed to serve on any board committee or
subcommittee that does not oversee personnel matters. The bill also allows them to
attend a BOR executive session at the board's invitation, rather than excluding them
from all executive sessions as under current law.
A public hearing was held and testimony in support came from Vijay Nair,
President, Connecticut State University American Association of University
Professors; Patricia O'Neill, Associate Professor of Psychology, WCSU, Member,
Faculty Advisory Committee to the Board of Regents for Higher Education;
Stephen Adair, Professor of Sociology, CCSU, Vice-Chair, Faculty Advisory
3
Committee to the Board of Regents for Higher Education. No testimony in
opposition was expressed in the hearing but, as in the past, the Board of Regents
continued to lobby against it.
We developed materials and met with several members of the Higher Education
Committee in support of the bill. We lobbied the Co-Chairs of the Higher
Education Committee to put the bill on an agenda for a vote. Resistance to the bill
came from a distrust of the Board of regents in general and from those who wished
to preserve management’s prerogative. Sen. Witkos (R-Canton) said he opposed
the bill because he didn’t want faculty in Executive Sessions and involved in any
discussions of litigation. Rep. Betts was satisfied with Executive Session language
but was going to vote “No” to indicate for the record that the bill was a work in
progress from his perspective.
The Committee approved a Joint Favorable Substitute 14-3 with three members
absent and not voting. The no votes came from Sen. Kevin Witkos (R-Canton),
Rep. Whit Betts (R-Bristol), and Rep. Mike Alberts (R-Woodstock).
The bill sat on the calendar of the House as we lobbied legislators and House
Leadership to get it called in time for it to make it all the way through the process.
Rep Willis brought out the bill and explained its provisions and responded to
questions in debate.
The House approved the bill as below:
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
Y
ACKERT
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
Y
ADINOLFI
Y
O'DEA
Y
LOPES
ALBERTS
Y
O'NEILL
AMAN
Y
PAVALOCK
Y
PERILLO
X ALBIS
N
Y
X NOUJAIM
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
N
BELSITO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
N
BERTHEL
Y
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
N
BETTS
Y
REBIMBAS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
Y
BOCCHINO
Y
RUTIGLIANO
X BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
Y
BOLINSKY
N
SAMPSON
Y
BAKER
Y
MORIN
Y
BUCK-TAYLOR
N
SCOTT
Y
BARAM
Y
MUSHINSKY
Y
BUMGARDNER
Y
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
BYRON
Y
SIMANSKI
N
4
N
PISCOPO
Y
BERGER
Y
PERONE
Y
CAMILLO
Y
SMITH
X BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
Y
CANDELORA, V.
Y
SREDZINSKI
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
CARNEY
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
Y
CARPINO
Y
CANDELARIA, J.
Y
RITTER
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
Y
CASE
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
Y
D'AMELIO
Y
CUEVAS
Y
ROSATI
Y
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
Y
CURREY
Y
ROSE
Y
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
Y
D'AGOSTINO
Y
ROVERO
Y
DUBITSKY
Y
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
Y
FERRARO
Y
ZIOBRON
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
Y
FLOREN
Y
ZUPKUS
Y
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
X FOX
Y
SIMMONS
X FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
LAVIELLE
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
Y
GENGA
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
CARTER
SRINIVASAN
STANESKI
N
Y
TWEEDIE
VAIL
N
N
WILMS
ZAWISTOWSKI
FRANCE
FREY
N
Y
GIEGLER
HARDING
N
HOYDICK
X STALLWORTH
Y
KLARIDES
Y
STEINBERG
Y
KOKORUDA
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
Y
KUPCHICK
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
Y
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
Y
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
Y
HEWETT
Y
VERRENGIA
Y
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
WALKER
Y
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
Y
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
Y
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
Y
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
KINER
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
X URBAN
N
N
The bill went to the Senate and we worked with Senators to get the bill called. We
were contacted by the Governor’s legislative office. The Governors’ Office wanted
to clarify the language and indicated that getting the Governor’s support and
ultimately his signature required these changes. We agreed to the changes. The
5
Senate adopted Amendment “A” which (1) removes the requirement that the
chairperson and vice-chairperson of BOR's FAC be allowed to serve on any board
committee or subcommittee that does not oversee personnel matters, with the
exception of the executive committee, and (2) specifies that any invitation for FAC
members to attend executive sessions must be extended by the BOR chairperson.
The passage of the amendment would also guarantee that the Republicans would
remove any unfriendly amendments. Both Higher Education Co-Chairs agreed to
the changes. The bill was then passed on a consent calendar and returned to the
House. We worked with Rep Willis to get the bill brought up quickly before it
could begin to attract unfriendly amendments. It was passed as amended by Senate
Amendment “A” on a consent calendar near the end of the session.
We spoke to the Governor’s Office this week and they have not heard of any
problems with the bill as passed. The bill is Public Act 15-228 and awaits the
Governor’s Signature.
WORKPLACE and LABOR BILLS
SB 426: AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYEE ONLINE PRIVACY. Passed.
Public Act 15-6. Signed by the Governor on May 19, 2015.
This act generally prohibits employers from requesting or requiring an employee or
job applicant to provide the employer with a user name, password, or other way to
access the employee's or applicant's personal online account ; authenticate or access
such an account in front of the employer; or invite, or accept an invitation from the
employer to join a group affiliated with such an account.
It bars employers from: firing, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against an
employee who (a) refuses to provide this access or (b) files a complaint with a
public or private body or court about the employer's request for access or
retaliation for refusing such access or refusing to hire an applicant because the
applicant would not provide access to his or her personal online account.
Under the act, a “personal online account” is an online account the employee or
applicant uses exclusively for personal purposes unrelated to any of the employer's
business purposes, including e-mail, social media, and retail-based Internet web
sites. It does not include any account created, maintained, used, or accessed by an
employee or applicant for the employer's business purposes.
The act provides exceptions for accounts and devices the employer provides and
certain types of investigations. Covered employers include the state and its
6
political subdivisions, but the act does not apply to a state or local law enforcement
agency conducting a preemployment investigation of law enforcement personnel.
The act allows employees and applicants to file a complaint with the labor
commissioner, who can impose civil penalties on employers of up to $25 for initial
violations against job applicants and $500 for initial violations against employees.
Penalties for subsequent violations can be up to $500 for violations against
applicants and up to $1,000 for violations against employees.
This bill was proposed by Senators Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (DNorwalk), Dante Bartolomeo (D-Meriden), Steve Cassano (D-Manchester), Eric
Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Joe Crisco (D-Woodbridge), Tim Larson (D-East
Hartford), Carlo Leone (D-Stamford), Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport), Cathy Osten
(D-Sprague) and Gary Winfield (D-New Haven).
It was referred to the Labor and Public Employees Committee for consideration,
and was co-sponsored by the legislators who proposed the bill as well as Senators
Andrew M. Maynard (D-Stonington), Edwin A. Gomes (D-Bridgeport), Gayle S.
Slossberg (D-Milford), Paul R. Doyle (D-Wethersfield), Mae Flexer (D-Killingly)
and Representatives Terry B. Adams (D-Stamford), David Arconti (D-Danbury),
Sen. Terry B. Gerratana (D-New Britain), Rep. James Albis (D-East Haven),
Cecilia Buck-Taylor (D-New Milford), Louis P. Esposito (D-West Haven), Patricia
Billie Miller (D-Stamford), Andre F. Baker (D-Bridgeport), Theresa W. Conroy
(D-Seymour), Daniel S. Rovero (D-Dayville) and Bob Godfrey (D-Danbury).
The original bill’s intent was to protect the online social media privacy of
employees and job applicants.
The original bill prohibits employers from requesting or requiring an employee or
job applicant to (1) provide the employer with a user name, password, or other way
to access the employee's or applicant's personal online account (see below); (2)
authenticate or access such an account in front of the employer; or (3) invite, or
accept an invitation from, the employer to join a group affiliated with such an
account.
It bars employers from:
1. firing, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against an employee who (a) refuses
to provide this access or (b) files a complaint with a public or private body or court
about the employer's request for access or retaliation for refusing such access and
7
2. refusing to hire an applicant because the applicant would not provide access to
his or her personal online account.
Under the bill, a “personal online account” is an online account the employee or
applicant uses exclusively for personal purposes unrelated to any of the employer's
business purposes, including e-mail, social media, and retail-based Internet web
sites. It does not include any account created, maintained, used, or accessed by an
employee or applicant for the employer's business purposes.
The bill makes exceptions for accounts and devices the employer provides and for
certain types of investigations. Employers covered by the bill include the state and
its political subdivisions, but its prohibitions do not apply to a state or local law
enforcement agency conducting a pre-employment investigation of law
enforcement personnel.
The bill allows employees and applicants to file a complaint with the labor
commissioner, who can impose civil penalties of up to $25 for initial violations
against job applicants and $500 for initial violations against employees. Penalties
for subsequent violations can be up to $500 for violations against applicants and up
to $1,000 for violations against employees.
The bill’s effective date is October 1, 2015.
EXCEPTIONS
The bill provides for a number of circumstances in which an employer can request
or require an employee or applicant to provide a user name, password, or other
authentication means for a personal online account.
Employer's Accounts and Devices
It allows an employer to request or require that an employee or applicant provide
access to:
1. any account or service (a) provided by the employer or by virtue of the
employee's work relationship with the employer or (b) that the employee uses for
business purposes and
2. any electronic communications device the employer supplied or paid for, in
whole or in part.
8
It defines “electronic communications device” as any electronic device capable of
transmitting, accepting, or processing data, including a computer, computer
network and computer system, as defined in state law, and a cellular or wireless
telephone.
Investigations
The bill allows exceptions for certain investigations, with limitations. Employers
can conduct an investigation:
1. based on receiving specific information about activity on an employee's or
applicant's personal online account to ensure compliance with (a) applicable state
or federal laws, (b) regulatory requirements, or (c) prohibitions against workrelated employee misconduct or
2. based on receiving specific information about an employee's or applicant's
unauthorized transfer of the employer's proprietary information, confidential
information, or financial data to or from a personal online account operated by an
employee, applicant, or other source.
An employer conducting these investigations can require an employee to provide
access to a personal online account, but cannot require disclosure of the user name,
password, or other means of accessing the personal online account. For example,
an employee or applicant under investigation could be required to privately access
a personal online account, but then provide the employer with access to the
account content.
The bill permits an employer to discharge, discipline, or otherwise penalize an
employee or applicant who transferred, without the employer's permission, the
employer's proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to or
from the employee or applicant's personal online account.
Monitoring and Blocking Data
The bill allows an employer, in compliance with state and federal law, to monitor,
review, access, or block electronic data (1) stored on an electronic communications
device paid for in whole or in part by the employer or (2) traveling through or
stored on an employer's network.
State and Federal Laws
9
The bill specifies that it does not prevent an employer from complying with state
or federal laws, regulations, or rules for self-regulatory organizations (e.g., the
Securities Exchange Commission's rules).
ENFORCEMENT
The bill allows employees and applicants to file complaints with the labor
commissioner alleging an employer requested or required access to a personal
online account or retaliated for a refusal to provide access in violation of this bill.
The commissioner must investigate each complaint and may hold a hearing, after
which she must send each party a written decision. Any employee or applicant who
prevails in a hearing must be awarded reasonable attorneys' fee and costs.
If the commissioner finds an employer violated the bill's ban on requesting access
to an employee's account, or retaliated against an employee for refusing to provide
access, she can (1) levy a civil penalty against the employer of up to $500 for an
initial violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation and (2) award the
employee all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement, back pay,
reestablishment of wages, or any other relief the commissioner deems appropriate.
If she finds an employer violated the bill's ban on requesting access to an
applicant's account, or refused to hire an applicant for refusing to provide access,
she can (1) levy a civil penalty against the employer of up to $25 for an initial
violation and $500 for each subsequent violation.
The commissioner can ask the attorney general to bring a civil suit to recover any
of the above civil penalties. Any party aggrieved by the commissioner's decision
can appeal to the Superior Court.
Testifying in support of the bill were David McGuire, Staff Attorney, American
Civil Liberties Union, Connecticut Chapter (ACLU-CT); Senator Martin Looney
(D-New Haven); Connecticut Council of Police Unions, AFSCME Council 15 and
Eric Gjede, Attorney, Connecticut Business Industry Association (CBIA).
No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Labor Committee
to the Senate Floor by a vote of 13-0. The substitute language prohibited an
employer from requiring an employee or applicant to accept the employer into a
group affiliated with his or her personal online account.
10
The bill was taken up in the Senate and passed the chamber by a roll call vote of
35-1. The only “no” vote was Sen. Rob Kane (R-Watertown).
The bill was then brought to the House Floor where it passed 135-14 on a roll call
vote, in concurrence with the Senate. The tally is below.
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
N
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
Y
ALBIS
Y
LOPES
N
ALBERTS
Y
O'NEILL
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
N
AMAN
Y
PAVALOCK
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
N
BELSITO
Y
PERILLO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
N
BERTHEL
Y
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
Y
BETTS
Y
REBIMBAS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
Y
BOCCHINO
Y
RUTIGLIANO
Y
BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
Y
BOLINSKY
N
SAMPSON
Y
BAKER
Y
MORIN
Y
BUCK-TAYLOR
N
SCOTT
Y
BARAM
Y
MUSHINSKY
Y
BUMGARDNER
Y
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
Y
BYRON
Y
SIMANSKI
Y
BERGER
Y
PERONE
Y
CAMILLO
Y
BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
Y
CANDELORA, V.
Y
SREDZINSKI
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
CARNEY
Y
SRINIVASAN
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
Y
CARPINO
Y
STANESKI
Y
CANDELARIA, J.
Y
RITTER
Y
CARTER
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
Y
CASE
Y
VAIL
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
Y
D'AMELIO
Y
WILMS
Y
CUEVAS
Y
ROSATI
Y
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
Y
CURREY
Y
ROSE
Y
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
Y
D'AGOSTINO
Y
ROVERO
Y
DUBITSKY
Y
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
Y
FERRARO
Y
ZIOBRON
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
Y
FLOREN
Y
ZUPKUS
Y
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
Y
FREY
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
Y
GIEGLER
Y
ACKERT
Y
ADINOLFI
N
11
FRANCE
NOUJAIM
N
N
N
N
N
O'DEA
PISCOPO
SMITH
TWEEDIE
ZAWISTOWSKI
X FOX
Y
SIMMONS
Y
HARDING
Y
STAFSTROM
Y
HOYDICK
X STALLWORTH
Y
KLARIDES
Y
FRITZ
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
Y
GENGA
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
STEINBERG
Y
KOKORUDA
Y
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
Y
KUPCHICK
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
Y
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
Y
URBAN
Y
LAVIELLE
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
Y
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
Y
HEWETT
Y
VERRENGIA
Y
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
WALKER
Y
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
Y
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
Y
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
KINER
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
N
Y
Senate Bill 426 became Public Act 15-6, and was signed into law by the Governor
on May 19, 2015.
SB 428: AN ACT PROTECTING INTERNS FROM WORKPLACE
HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION. Passed. Public Act 15-56. The
Governor signed the bill into law on June 22, 2015 and it takes effect on October
1, 2015.
This bill was proposed by Senators Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (DNorwalk), Beth Bye (D-West Hartford), Gary Winfield (D-New Haven), Mae
Flexer (D-Killingly), Tim Larson (D-East Hartford), Marilyn Moore (DBridgeport), Steve Cassano (D-Manchester), Eric Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Joe
Crisco (D-Woodbridge) and Ted Kennedy (D-Branford).
The bill was referred to the Labor and Public Employees Committee for
consideration, and was co-sponsored by the aforementioned legislators as well as
Senators Paul R. Doyle (D-Wethersfield), Edwin A. Gomes (D-Bridgeport),
Andrew M. Maynard (D-Stonington), Kevin D. Witkos (D-Canton), Catherine A.
Osten (D-Sprague) and Representatives, Minnie Gonzalez (D-Hartford), J.P.
Sredzinski (D-Monroe), Janice R. Giegler (D-Danbury), Theresa W. Conroy (DSeymour), Tami Zawistowski (D-Granby), Mitch Bolinsky (D-Newtown), Gayle J.
Mulligan (D-Hebron), David Rutigliano (D-Trumbull), Daniel S. Rovero (D12
Dayville), Michelle L. Cook (D-Torrington), Stephen G. Harding (D-Brookfield),
Juan R. Candelaria (D-New Haven), Jesse MacLachlan (D-Westbrook), Andrew
M. Fleischmann (D-West Hartford), Mike Bocchino (D-Greenwich) and Dave W.
Yaccarino (D-North Haven).
The intent of the original bill was to protect unpaid interns from workplace
harassment and discrimination.
This bill prohibits an employer from discriminating against or sexually harassing
interns, thus giving interns protections similar to those of paid employees.
It defines an “intern” as a person working for an employer who (1) does not pay
and has not committed to hiring him or her and is not paid by the employer, (2)
who the employer has not committed to hiring, and (3) where the internship
designed the internship to supplement training that may enhance the intern's
employability. The bill defines an “employer” as any person engaged in business in
the state, who provides a position for an intern (presumably this does not include
the state and its municipalities).
The bill makes a violation of its provisions a “discriminatory practice” under state
human rights law, which means one may file complaints of alleged violation with
the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and pursue civil action in
Superior Court.
The bill’s effective date is October 1, 2015
DISCRIMNATION AND RETRIBUTION
The bill prohibits discrimination based on an intern's race, color, religious creed,
age, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, ancestry, present or past history of mental disability, intellectual disability,
learning disability or physical disability, including, but not limited to, blindness.
The bill's prohibition covers hiring, firing, and advertising internships. The bill also
notes that they do not apply in the case of bona fide occupational qualifications or
need. (This provision reflects existing anti-discrimination law.)
The bill also bans an employer from firing or taking other discriminatory steps
against an intern for filing a complaint or testifying in a proceeding about a
discrimination complaint.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
13
The bill bans sexual harassment of interns and anyone seeking an internship.
It defines “harassment” as any unwanted sexual advances or any other conduct of a
sexual nature when:
1. submission to the conduct is made a condition of the internship;
2. submission to or rejection of the conduct by an intern or internship applicant is
the basis for workplace decisions affecting the intern; or
3. the conduct substantially interferes with an intern's work performance or creates
an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
CONDITIONS OF INTERN WORK
In addition to (1) the employer not committing to hiring the intern and (2) both
parties agreeing that the intern will not be paid for his or her work, the bill names
other conditions of an intern's working situation. The intern's work must:
1. supplement training given in an educational environment that may enhance the
intern's employability,
2. provide experience for the intern's benefit,
3. not displace any of the employer's employees,
4. be performed under the employer's supervision or that of an employee of the
employer, and
5. provide no immediate advantage to the employer providing the training and may
occasionally impede the employer's operations.
Testifying in support of the bill were Senator Martin Looney; Bill Finch, Mayor,
City of Bridgeport; Tanya Hughes, Executive Director, Commission on Human
Rights and Opportunities; Carolyn Treiss, Executive Director, Permanent
Commission on the Status of Women; Laura Callahan, Student Intern, Connecticut
Women's Education and Legal Fund; Lori Pelletier, Executive Secretary-Treasurer,
Connecticut AFL-CIO and Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services Inc.
No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.
14
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Labor Committee
to the Senate Floor by a vote of 13-0. The substitute language added protections
from discrimination based on an intern's sexual orientation.
Once the bill was taken up, Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Senators
Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Eric Coleman (DBloomfield), Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford), Terry Gerratana (D-New Britain) and
Edwin Gomes (D-Bridgeport), and adopted by voice vote. The amendment offered
definitions for the words “employer” and “person” and replaced the word “person”
with “individual” in a number of lines.
The bill, as amended, was then referred to the Judiciary Committee for further
consideration. The committee favorably reported the bill back to the Senate on a
roll call vote of 42-0.
When back in the Senate bill, as amended by Senate Amendment “A”, was placed
on the consent calendar, and passed the chamber unanimously.
The bill was sent to the House where Senate Amendment “A” was adopted by
voice vote, and the bill passed unanimously (146-0) in concurrence with the
Senate.
It became Public Act 15-56, and awaits the Governor’s signature.
SB 1035: AN ACT CONCERNING BULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE.
Died.
This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee, and was
co-sponsored by Sen. Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge) and Rep. Minnie Gonzalez
(D-Hartford).
This bill would have defined abusive conduct by state employees and required the
administrative services (DAS) commissioner to establish policies and procedures
for preventing, reporting, evaluating, and investigating complaints of state
employee abusive conduct.
It would have also created a Workplace Bullying Advisory Board that would have
had to issue an annual report, beginning January 1, 2016, on the number of
workplace abuse or violence complaints and complaint outcomes.
15
The bill would have been effective upon passage.
ABUSIVE CONDUCT
The bill would have defined abusive conduct as a state employee's workplace
conduct that:
1. is performed with malice and is unrelated to the state's legitimate interest and
2. a reasonable person would find hostile or offensive considering the severity,
nature, and frequency of the conduct.
Abusive conduct would have included (1) verbal abuse such as derogatory
remarks, insults, and epithets; (2) verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable
person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating; and (3) sabotaging or
undermining a person's work performance. Current law does not define abusive
conduct.
The bill would have defined a state employee as any employee in the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch, but not contractors, subcontractors, or vendors.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The bill would have required the DAS commissioner, or her designee, to establish,
within existing budgetary resources, policies and procedures to prevent, report,
evaluate, and investigate complaints of state employee abusive conduct by January
1, 2016. She would have had to consult with the public safety and mental health
and addiction services commissioners, or their designees, during this process. The
DAS commissioner already has duties similar to this regarding state employee
workplace violence (see BACKGROUND).
WORKPLACE BULLYING ADVISORY BOARD
Membership
The bill would have required the DAS commissioner, in consultation with the
public safety, labor, and mental health and addiction services commissioners, to
create a 12-member Workplace Bullying Advisory Board.
16
The board would have consist of the following members: two each appointed by
the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore and one each appointed by the
House and Senate majority and minority leaders.
It would have also included the DAS, public safety, labor, and mental health and
addiction services commissioners, or their respective designees. All board
appointments would have had to be made within 30 days from the bill's effective
date. Appointing authorities would have filled any vacancies.
The House speaker and the Senate president pro tempore would have selected two
chairpersons from among the board members. The two chairpersons would have
scheduled the first meeting, which would have been held within 60 days of the
bill's effective date.
Board members would have served without compensation but would have been
reimbursed within available appropriations and according to the standard travel
regulations for necessary expenses that they may incur through service on the
board.
A majority of the board would have constituted a quorum for the transaction of
business, the exercise of any power, or the performance of any duty authorized or
imposed by law. Each member has one vote. The DAS administrative staff would
have served as the board's administrative staff.
Annual Report
The board would have had to (1) issue an annual report, beginning by January 1,
2016, on the number of workplace abuse or violence complaints and the complaint
outcomes and (2) submit it to the Government Administration and Elections,
Labor, Public Safety, and Human Services committees.
The report would have had to include:
1. a summary of the number of workplace violence or abusive conduct complaints
involving state employees and the complaint outcomes for the preceding year,
2. recommendations for administrative or legislative action related to the
complaints, and
3. any additional information that the board deems necessary and relevant to
reduce instances of violence and abusive conduct in the workplace.
17
BACKGROUND
DAS, Mandatory Workplace Violence Training, and the Statewide Security
Management Council
By law, DAS must develop a state employee training program on workplace
violence, awareness, and preparedness that all state employees must attend.
By law, each state agency must report biannually to the Statewide Security
Management Council on the frequency, character, and resolution of any workplace
violence incidents (CGS § 4b-136).
Testifying in support of the bill were Melody Currey, Commissioner, Department
of Administrative Services; Stephen Ment, External Affairs State of Connecticut
Judicial Branch; State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities (CHRO); Lindsey Farrell, State Director, Connecticut Working
Family Party; Lori Pelletier, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Connecticut AFLCIO; Bob Augusta, AFSCME Local 318 and employees Helen Sullivan, Vanessa
Wimberly, Marilyn Rice, Richard Briggs, Habibah Abdul-Hakeem, Africka S.
Hinds, Laura Lillian Dickerson, Marcy Fanello anf Sylvester Traylor.
Testifying in opposition to the bill were Katherine Hermes, Founder, Connecticut
Healthy Workplace Advocates; and employees Lisa Bigelow, Alexandra Maravel,
Carrie Carlson and Candice Kohn, RNMN.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Labor Committee to the Senate Floor by
a vote of 13-0.
Once the bill was taken up, Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Sens. Martin
Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Eric Coleman (D-Bloomfield),
Paul Doyle (D-Wethersfield), Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford), Terry Gerratana (DNew Britain) and Edwin Gomes (D-Bridgeport), and was adopted by voice vote.
The amendment would have changed the deadline for the advisory board's first
annual report from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2017.
The bill was then referred to the Government, Administration and Elections
Committee for further consideration. The committee favorably reported the bill
18
back to the Senate on a roll call vote of 13-1. The “no” vote was Senator Michael
McLachlan (R-Danbury).
Upon its return, Senate Amendment “B” was offered by Sens. Edwin Gomes (DBridgeport), Cathy Osten (D-Sprague), Gary Winfield (D-New Haven) and Rep.
Peter Tercyak (D-New Britain), and was adopted by voice vote. The amendment
would have eliminated a provision that required the DAS commissioner to
establish policies and procedures to prevent, report, evaluate, and investigate
complaints about state employee abusive conduct.
The bill, as amended by Senate Amendments “A” and “B” , passed the Chamber
unanimously on a roll call vote of 23-12. The tally is below.
Y
1
JOHN W. FONFARA
Y
19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN
Y
2
ERIC D. COLEMAN
Y
20 PAUL M. FORMICA
Y
3
TIM LARSON
Y
21 KEVIN KELLY
Y
4
STEVE CASSANO
Y
22 MARILYN MOORE
5
BETH BYE
Y
23 EDWIN A. GOMES
6
TERRY B. GERRATANA
A
Y
N 7
JOHN A. KISSEL
N 8
KEVIN D. WITKOS
N 24 MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN
Y
25 BOB DUFF
N 26 TONI BOUCHER
Y
9
PAUL DOYLE
Y
27 CARLO LEONE
Y
10 GARY WINFIELD
Y
28 TONY HWANG
Y
11 MARTIN M. LOONEY
Y
29 MAE M. FLEXER
Y
12 TED KENNEDY
N 30 CLARK J. CHAPIN
Y
13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO
N 31 HENRI MARTIN
Y
14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG
N 32 ROBERT J. KANE
Y
15 JOAN V. HARTLEY
N 33 ART LINARES
N 16 JOE MARKLEY
N 34 LEONARD FASANO
Y
17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR.
N 35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO
Y
18 ANDREW MAYNARD
N 36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ
The bill died on the House calendar when it was not called for a vote.
19
SB 435: AN ACT PROHIBITING NONDISPARAGEMENT CLAUSES IN
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SEPARATION AGREEMENTS. Died.
This bill was proposed by Senators Martin Looney (D-New Haven) to address a
situation that occurred when CSU Provost Michael Gargano abruptly departed with
a lucrative separation agreement that contained a “non-disparagement” clause.
Several media outlets attempting to find the cause of the separation and the reason
for the lucrative payout were stymied by the clause and were very critical of it.
The bill was referred to the Labor and Public Employees Committee for
consideration and cosponsored by Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Beth Bye (D-West
Hartford), Gary Winfield (D-New Haven), Mae Flexer (D-Killingly), Marilyn
Moore (D-Bridgeport), Steve Cassano (D-Manchester), Eric Coleman (DBloomfield) and Joe Crisco (D-Woodbridge).
This bill would have prohibited public employers and their managerial employees
from entering into termination, suspension, or separation agreements that prohibit
or restrict the employees from disclosing or discussing (1) any aspect of their
employment, termination, suspension, or separation or (2) any of their public
employer's policies, actions, or programs. The prohibition would have only applied
to such agreements that are separate from any employment agreement that may
have existed between a public employer and its managerial employee before the
employee's termination, suspension, or separation.
The bill would have specified that public employers and their managerial
employees may enter into agreements that prohibit the managerial employees from
disclosing records exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act.
The bill’s effective date would have been October 1, 2015.
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS AND MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES
“Public employers” under the bill would have included (1) all three branches of the
state government, including any of their boards, departments, commissions,
institutions, agencies, or units; (2) any board of trustees of a state-owned orsupported college or university and its branches; and (3) public and quasi-public
state corporations, political subdivisions (e.g., municipalities), or authorities
established by state law.
20
Under the bill, “public managerial employees” would have been those in positions
with principal functions that include at least two of the following:
1. (a) responsibility for directing a public employer's subunit or major division's
facility or (b) an assignment to head a public employer's staff;
2. developing, implementing, and evaluating goals and objectives consistent with
the public employer's mission and policy;
3. participating in formulating the public employer's policy; or
4. playing a major role in administering collective bargaining agreements or major
personnel decisions, or both, including staffing, hiring, firing, evaluating,
promoting, and training of employees.
For positions in any unit of the higher education system to be considered
managerial, one of the position's two functions from the above list must be playing
a major role in administering collective bargaining agreements or major personnel
decisions (number four above).
Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing was Senator Martin Looney
who stated that it should be the policy of the State that no high ranking public
official should have such a gag order and that it was affront to freedom of
information and open government principles.
No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Labor Committee to the Senate Floor by
a vote of 10-3. The tally is below.
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
10
3
0
0
TOTALS
13
yea
Sen. Gomes, E. S23
Rep. Tercyak, P. 026
Sen. Osten, C. S19
Rep. Cuevas, V. 075
Sen. Hwang, T. S28
Rep. Rutigliano, D. 123
nay abstain absent
yea
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
Voice Vote
nay abstain absent
Rep. Esposito, L. 116
Rep. Kiner, D. 059
Rep. Luxenberg, K. 012
Rep. McGee, B. 005
Rep. Miner, C. 066
Rep. Smith, R. 108
Rep. Vail, K. 052
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Once the bill was taken up, Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Senators
Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Eric Coleman (DBloomfield), Paul Doyle (D-Wethersfield), Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford), Terri
Gerratana (D-New Britain), Edwin Gomes (D-Bridgeport) and Len Fasano (RNorth Haven), and adopted by voice vote.
The amendment would have limited the bill's prohibition to public managerial
employees, instead of applying it to all public employees.
The bill, as amended, passed the Senate on a roll call vote of 30-4. The tally is
posted below.
Y
1
JOHN W. FONFARA
Y
19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN
Y
2
ERIC D. COLEMAN
Y
20 PAUL M. FORMICA
Y
3
LARSON
4
STEVE CASSANO
Y
22 MARILYN MOORE
Y
5
BETH BYE
Y
23 EDWIN A. GOMES
Y
6
TERRY B. GERRATANA
Y
24 MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN
Y
7
JOHN A. KISSEL
Y
25 BOB DUFF
Y
8
KEVIN D. WITKOS
Y
9
PAUL DOYLE
Y
10 GARY WINFIELD
Y
11 MARTIN M. LOONEY
Y
29 MAE M. FLEXER
Y
12 TED KENNEDY
Y
30 CLARK J. CHAPIN
Y
13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO
A
N 21 KEVIN KELLY
N 26 TONI BOUCHER
Y
27 CARLO LEONE
N 28 TONY HWANG
N 31 HENRI MARTIN
22
Y
14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG
Y
Y
15 JOAN V. HARTLEY
Y
16 JOE MARKLEY
Y
34 LEONARD FASANO
Y
17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR.
Y
35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO
Y
18 ANDREW MAYNARD
Y
36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ
A
32 ROBERT J. KANE
33 ART LINARES
The bill died on the House calendar when it was not called for a vote.
SB 861: AN ACT CONCERNING CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
CHECKS AND DISCIPLINE OF FACULTY MEMBERS OF
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. Died.
This bill was introduced by the High Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Sen. Kevin D. Witkos (R-Canton).
Sen. Witkos and most members of the Higher Education Committee, were
concerned about a lack of communication from the Board of Regents and a recent
promotion that occurred that generated adverse publicity for the CSU System.
After the bill was submitted and more information was known about the particular
promotion legislators were concerned about; they were angry and concerned that
the Board of Regents may have lied to them about the information that was
available before the promotion.
This bill would have required Connecticut higher education institutions (including
UConn and all its campuses, all state universities in the Connecticut State University
System (CSUS), all regional community-technical colleges, and Charter Oak State
College) to:
1. require a faculty member who is actively under consideration for a promotion to
submit to a state and national criminal history records check and
2. discipline, in accordance with the institution's disciplinary procedures, a faculty
member who is convicted of a felony while employed by the institution. The
disciplinary action may include employment termination.
Under the original bill, after September 30, 2016, any new (1) collective bargaining
agreement that applies to an institution's faculty or (2) employment contract between
23
a faculty member and an institution must not include a provision that limits the
institution's ability to carry out the bill's requirements.
The bill’s effective date would have been October 1, 2015.
Testifying in support of the bill was former UConn professor, Representative Gail
Lavielle (R-Wilton).
Testifying in opposition to the bill were Vijay Nair, President, Connecticut State
University American Association of Professors; Michael Eagen, Director, Office of
Faculty and Staff Labor Relations, University of Connecticut; Dennis Bogusky,
President, Federation of Technical Colleges, AFT Connecticut; Diomedes
Tsitouras, Executive Director, University of Connecticut Health Center, American
Association of University Professors; Katherine Hermes, J.D., Ph.D. Chair,
Department of History, Central Connecticut State University; Michael Bailey,
Executive Director, University of Connecticut-American Association of University
Professors; Patricia O'Neill, Associate Professor of Psychology, Chapter President
of Western Connecticut State University American Association of University
Professors,, member of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the Board of
Regents; Rudy Fichtebaum, President, American Association of University
Professors and the Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges.
We continued to have discussions and meetings with Higher Education Committee
members and with the Co-Chairs about the consequences of the bill and the
problems with the proposed language. A substitute version of the bill was
favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee to the Senate Floor by a
vote of 15-3. The tally is below. The substitute language clarifies that the collective
bargaining agreement, not the school or constituent unit that has jurisdiction over
the school, shall require the faculty member to submit to a criminal background
check before promotion and discipline a faculty member for criminal conduct
while employed by the school. This would have cleared up some of the legal
problems of the original language.
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
15
3
0
2
TOTALS
18
yea
Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13
Rep. Willis, R. 064
nay abstain absent
yea
X
X
24
Voice Vote
nay abstain absent
Sen. Witkos, K. S08
Rep. Betts, W. 078
Sen. Flexer, M. S29
Rep. Lopes, R. 024
Rep. Ackert, T. 008
Rep. Alberts, M. 050
Rep. Bocchino, M. 150
Rep. Candelaria, J. 095
Rep. Carney, D. 023
Rep. Dillon, P. 092
Rep. Gentile, L. 104
Rep. Haddad, G. 054
Rep. Janowski, C. 056
Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017
Rep. MacLachlan, J. 035
Rep. McCrory, D. 007
Rep. Sanchez, R. 025
Rep. Walker, T. 093
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
We spoke with staff and others to get the bill referred to other committees. The bill
was referred to the Public Safety and Security Committee for further consideration.
It was favorably reported back to the Senate Floor by a roll call vote of 22-3. The
tally is below.
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
22
3
0
0
TOTALS
25
yea
Sen. Larson, T. S03
Rep. Dargan, S. 115
Sen. Coleman, E. S02
Rep. Verrengia, J. 020
Sen. Guglielmo, A. S35
Rep. Zupkus, L. 089
Rep. Adams, T. 146
Rep. Arconti, D. 109
nay abstain absent
yea
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
25
Voice Vote
nay abstain absent
Rep. Boukus, E. 022
Rep. D'Amelio, A. 071
Rep. Esposito, L. 116
Rep. Ferraro, C. 117
Sen. Formica, P. S20
Rep. Giegler, J. 138
Sen. Gomes, E. S23
Rep. Gonzalez, M. 003
Rep. Kiner, D. 059
Rep. Miner, C. 066
Rep. Nicastro, F. 079
Rep. Orange, L. 048
Rep. Rovero, D. 051
Rep. Simmons, C. 144
Rep. Sredzinski, J. 112
Rep. Yaccarino, D. 087
Rep. Vail, K. 052
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
We worked with leadership and other legislators and the Co-Chairs of the Labor
Committee to get the bill sent to the Labor Committee. We had a commitment
from the Labor Committee Co-Chairs to kill the bill. The bill was referred to the
Labor and Public Employees Committee, where a meeting was held and Rep. Peter
Tercyak, House Chair of the Committee, made a motion to adjourn the meeting
before the bill could be called. It died with no further action.
At this point, Senator Witkos and others began putting amendments for criminal
background checks on numerous bills. This was causing a logjam of Higher
Education bills and Labor bills. We worked with supportive legislators to hold
back those bills while we lobbied the issue. Rep. Willis agreed to allow the
amendment to be placed onto another bill that wasn’t needed so that the supporters
of the amendment could have a discussion and the amended bill could then die in
the Senate. The bill chosen was SB 929: AN ACT CONCERNING THE
STUDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
CHECKS OF FACULTY MEMBERS OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION IN THE STATE. DIED (see below).
26
In the meantime we organized a meeting of allies and all agreed to activate
membership in Sen. Witkos’ district to try and get a meeting to make the Senator
aware of our collective concerns. Several AAUP CSU members met the Senator in
his district and he agreed not to pursue the amendment further in the session. We
learned that there would be several prominent professors at UConn who would be
negatively affected by the provisions of the bill.
No further amendments were called and SB929 died in the Senate without further
action. The provision for student representation on the Board of Regents was
placed as substitute language into SB1091 as amendment and passed by both
houses and are awaiting the Governor’s signature.
HB 6850: AN ACT CONCERNING PAY EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. Passed.
Public Act 15-196. Awaiting the Governor’s signature.
This bill prohibits employers, including the state and municipalities, from taking
certain steps to limit their employees' ability to share information about their wages.
Under the bill, such sharing consists of employees under the same employer (1)
disclosing or discussing the amount of their own wages or other employees'
voluntarily disclosed wages or (2) asking about other employees' wages.
Specifically, the bill bans employers from (1) prohibiting their employees from such
sharing; (2) requiring employees to sign a waiver or document that denies their right
to such sharing; and (3) discharging, disciplining, discriminating or retaliating
against, or otherwise penalizing employees for such sharing.
The bill allows employees to bring a lawsuit to redress a violation of its provisions
in any court of competent jurisdiction. The suit must be brought within two years
after an alleged violation. Employers can be found liable for compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and costs, punitive damages, and any legal and equitable relief the
court deems just and proper.
It limits an employee's sharing of another employee's wage information to
information that (1) is about another of the employer's employees and (2) was
voluntarily disclosed by the other employee.
This bill was the Governor’s bill that was introduced by legislative Democratic
leadership: Senate President Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Senate Majority
Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), House Speaker J. Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden)
and House Majority Leader Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin).
27
It was referred to the Labor and Public Employees Committee, and was cosponsored by Representatives Minnie Gonzalez (D-Hartford), Linda M. Gentile
(D-Ansonia), Matthew Lesser (D-Middletown), Rick Lopes (D-New Britain),
Christine Rosati (D-Killingly), Bob Godfrey (D-Danbury), Elizabeth A. Boukus
(D-Plainville), James Albis (D-East Haven), Theresa W. Conroy (D-Seymour),
Mary G. Fritz (D-Wallingford), Terry B. Adams (D-Stamford), Michelle L. Cook
(D-Torrington), Juan R. Candelaria (D-New Haven), Patricia Billie Miller (DStamford), Robyn A. Porter (D-New Haven), Hilda E. Santiago (D-Meriden),
Prasad Srinivasan (R-Glastonbury), Joseph C. Serra (D-Middletown) and Senators
Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge), Catherine A. Osten (D-Sprague), Edwin A.
Gomes (D-Bridgeport) and Beth Bye (D-West Hartford).
The original bill prohibits employers, including the state (and all its subdivisions)
and municipalities, from:
1. prohibiting an employee from disclosing, asking about, or discussing the amount
of his or her wages or the wages of another employee;
2. requiring an employee to sign a waiver or document that denies the employee's
right to disclose, ask about, or discuss his or her wages or the wages of another
employee; or
3. discharging, disciplining, discriminating or retaliating against, or otherwise
penalizing an employee who discloses, asks about, or discusses his or her wages or
the wages of another employee.
The bill allows employees to bring a lawsuit to redress a violation of its provisions
in any court of competent jurisdiction. The suit must be brought within two years
after an alleged violation. Employers can be found liable for compensatory
damages, attorney's fees and costs, punitive damages, and any legal and equitable
relief the court deems just and proper.
The bill’s effective date is July 1, 2015.
The bill specifies that it does not require an employer or employee to disclose any
employee's wages.
Testifying in support of the bill were Sharon M. Palmer, Commissioner,
Department of Labor; Kevin Lembo, Comptroller, State of Connecticut; Carolyn
Treiss, Executive Director, Permanent Commission on the Status of Women
(PCSW); Catherine Smith, Commissioner, Department of Economic and
28
Community Development; Madeline Granato, Public Policy Intern & Catherine
Bailey, Legal and Public Policy Director, Connecticut Women’s Education and
Legal Fund (CWEALF); the National Organization for Women, Connecticut
Chapter; Lori Pelletier, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Connecticut AFL-CIO and
Thursa Isaac, President, AFSCME Local 562.
Testifying in opposition to the bill was Eric W. Gjede, Assistant Counsel,
Connecticut Business & Industry (CBIA).
The bill was favorably reported out of the Labor Committee to the House Floor by
a vote of 13-0.
The bill was referred by the House to the Judiciary Committee for further
consideration. It was favorably reported back to the Floor by a partisan roll call
vote of 28-16. The tally is below.
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
28
16
0
1
TOTALS
44
yea
nay abstain absent
Voice Vote
yea
nay abstain absent
Sen. Coleman, E. S02
X
Sen. McLachlan, M. S24
Rep. Tong, W. 147
X
Rep. Morris, B. 140
Sen. Doyle, P. S09
X
Rep. O'Dea, T. 125
X
Rep. O'Neill, A. 069
X
X
Rep. Fox, D. 148
Sen. Kissel, J. S07
X
X
Rep. Rebimbas, R. 070
X
Rep. Adinolfi, A. 103
Rep. Arce, A. 004
Rep. Baram, D. 015
X
Rep. Porter, R. 094
X
Rep. Riley, E. 046
X
Rep. Sampson, R. 080
X
Rep. Aman, W. 014
X
Rep. Serra, J. 033
X
X
X
Rep. Shaban, J. 135
X
Rep. Simmons, C. 144
29
X
X
Rep. Berger, J. 073
X
X
Sen. Boucher, T. S26
Rep. Fritz, M. 090
Sen. Gerratana, T. S06
Rep. Godfrey, B. 110
Rep. Gonzalez, M. 003
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sen. Linares, A. S33
Rep. McGorty, B. 122
X
X
Rep. Labriola, D. 131
Rep. Lemar, R. 096
X
X
Rep. Harding, S. 107
Rep. Hewett, E. 039
Sen. Winfield, G. S10
X
X
Rep. Dubitsky, D. 047
Sen. Flexer, M. S29
Rep. Walker, T. 093
X
Rep. Carpino, C. 032
Rep. Dillon, P. 092
Rep. Verrengia, J. 020
X
Rep. Candelora, V. 086
Rep. Currey, J. 011
Rep. Stafstrom, S. 129
X
Rep. Buck-Taylor, C. 067
Sen. Bye, B. S05
Rep. Smith, R. 108
X
Once the bill was taken up, House Amendment “A” was offered by Rep. Peter
Tercyak (D-New Britain), and adopted by voice vote. House Amendment
30
“A” limits an employee's sharing of another employee's wage information to
information that (1) is about another of the employer's employees and (2) was
voluntarily disclosed by the other employee.
The bill, as amended, passed the House chamber on a roll call vote of 104-40. The
tally is below.
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
Y
ALBIS
Y
LOPES
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
Y
ARCE
Y
Y
Y
N
ACKERT
N
NOUJAIM
ADINOLFI
N
O'DEA
X ALBERTS
Y
O'NEILL
N
AMAN
Y
PAVALOCK
MCCARTHY VAHEY
N
BELSITO
Y
PERILLO
Y
MCCRORY
N
BERTHEL
N
PISCOPO
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
Y
BETTS
N
REBIMBAS
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
Y
BOCCHINO
X BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
N
BOLINSKY
N
SAMPSON
Y
BAKER
Y
MORIN
N
BUCK-TAYLOR
N
SCOTT
Y
BARAM
Y
MUSHINSKY
BUMGARDNER
N
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
N
BYRON
N
SIMANSKI
Y
BERGER
Y
PERONE
N
CAMILLO
N
SMITH
Y
BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
Y
CANDELORA, V.
N
SREDZINSKI
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
CARNEY
N
SRINIVASAN
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
CARPINO
N
STANESKI
Y
CANDELARIA, J.
Y
RITTER
Y
N
Y
CARTER
31
Y
Y
RUTIGLIANO
TWEEDIE
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
N
CASE
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
N
D'AMELIO
Y
CUEVAS
Y
ROSATI
Y
CURREY
Y
ROSE
X D'AGOSTINO
N
Y
VAIL
N
WILMS
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
N
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
ROVERO
N
DUBITSKY
N
ZAWISTOWSKI
N
FERRARO
N
ZIOBRON
N
ZUPKUS
Y
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
Y
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
N
FRANCE
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
N
FREY
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
N
GIEGLER
Y
SIMMONS
N
HARDING
X FOX
Y
X FLOREN
Y
FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
Y
HOYDICK
Y
GENGA
Y
STALLWORTH
Y
KLARIDES
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
STEINBERG
Y
KOKORUDA
Y
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
N
KUPCHICK
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
N
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
Y
URBAN
N
LAVIELLE
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
Y
HEWETT
Y
VERRENGIA
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
WALKER
Y
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
X LEGEYT
Y
N
Y
32
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
X GENTILE (DEP)
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
KINER
Y
ZONI
Y
N
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
When the bill was taken up in the Senate, House Amendment “A” was adopted by
voice vote and the underlying bill passed in concurrence with the Senate by a
mostly partisan roll call vote of 29-7. The tally is below.
Y
1
JOHN W. FONFARA
Y
19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN
Y
2
ERIC D. COLEMAN
Y
20 PAUL M. FORMICA
Y
3
TIM LARSON
Y
21 KEVIN KELLY
Y
4
STEVE CASSANO
Y
22 MARILYN MOORE
Y
5
BETH BYE
Y
23 EDWIN A. GOMES
Y
6
TERRY B. GERRATANA
Y
7
JOHN A. KISSEL
Y
25 BOB DUFF
Y
8
KEVIN D. WITKOS
Y
26 TONI BOUCHER
Y
9
PAUL DOYLE
Y
27 CARLO LEONE
Y
10 GARY WINFIELD
Y
28 TONY HWANG
Y
11 MARTIN M. LOONEY
Y
29 MAE M. FLEXER
Y
12 TED KENNEDY
Y
13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO
Y
14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG
N 32 ROBERT J. KANE
Y
15 JOAN V. HARTLEY
N 33 ART LINARES
N 24 MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN
N 30 CLARK J. CHAPIN
Y
N 16 JOE MARKLEY
31 HENRI MARTIN
N 34 LEONARD FASANO
33
Y
17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR.
Y
18 ANDREW MAYNARD
Y
35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO
N 36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ
The bill became Public Act 15-196, and awaits the Governor’s signature. HB
HB 6874: AN ACT CONCERNING GRADUATE ASSISTANT BENEFITS.
Died.
This bill was introduced by the Labor and Public Employees Committee, and was
co-sponsored by Representatives Victor Cuevas (D-Waterbury), John K. Hampton
(D-Simsbury) and Senator Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven).
The original bill would have required the UConn board of trustees to (1) waive all
student fees for UConn graduate assistants (GAs) (see BACKGROUND) and (2)
enroll UConn GAs in the state-administered health insurance plan for State
employees. The substitute bill would have given graduate assistants the choice of
enrolling in the Partnership Plan, a non-public employee State administered health
plan. It changed the definition of the Partnership Plan to include GAs among those
offered participation. The bill would not have provided a mechanism for UConn, a
state employer, to pay the premiums, nor did it add UConn to the listed employers
under the plan. Presumably, the board of trustees would pay the costs of the
coverage. (The law requires partnership plan participating employers to pay a
monthly premium to the comptroller.)
The bill’s effective date would have been July 1, 2015.
BACKGROUND
Graduate Assistants
There are approximately 7,000 graduate students at UConn, with approximately
one-third of them holding graduate appointments at a given time.
Under legislation passed in 2003, GAs became ineligible for the state employee
health insurance plan and were required to participate in the student health plan.
By existing law, unchanged by the bill, GAs are granted remission or waiver of
tuition (approximately $12,000 for in-state students and $31,000 for out-of-state
students) and receive stipends.
34
GAs receive health insurance through the student health plan and receive premium
subsidies ranging from $4,000 for individual coverage to $11,600 for family
coverage.
Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Kevin Lembo,
Comptroller, State of Connecticut who recommended the changes that eventually
became the substitute language of the bill. Others testifying in support were Todd
Berch, Field Director, Connecticut AFL-CIO; Julie Kushner, Director, and
Beverley Brakemen, Political Representative, International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers of America
(UAW) and Lindsay Farrell, State Director, Connecticut Working Families Party.
Testifying in opposition to the bill was Mun Choi, Provost and Executive Vice
President for Academic Affairs, University of Connecticut (UConn).
The substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Labor
Committee by a vote of 23-0. The substitute language passed would have required
that the graduate assistants be enrolled in the Partnership Plan instead of the state
employee's health insurance plan. The Partnership Plan is a program that opens the
State of Connecticut Employee Health Benefits Plan to non-state government
employers including municipalities and boards of education.
The bill died on the House calendar when it was not called for a vote.
HB 6876: AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. Died.
This bill was introduced by the labor and Public Employees Committee, and was
co-sponsored by Rep. Victor Cuevas 9D-Waterbury) and Sen. Martin M. Looney
(D-New Haven).
This bill would have prohibited the state's public higher education institutions from
entering into collective bargaining agreements with labor organizations (i.e.,
unions) that:
1. ban an employee from filing a civil or administrative action alleging
discrimination or retaliation for exercising any right provided under state or federal
law or
35
2. limit an employee's right to arbitrate a grievance if the employee has started a
civil or administrative proceeding about the grievance.
The prohibition would have applied to the University of Connecticut, the
Connecticut State University System, the regional community-technical colleges,
and Charter Oak State College.
The bill would have allowed employees aggrieved by the ban or limitation to file a
complaint with the labor commissioner. The commissioner could have (1) held a
hearing on the violation and (2) awarded the employee all appropriate relief,
including reinstatement, back wages, and reestablishment of benefits. She would
have had to send each party a written copy of her decision after the hearing. Parties
aggrieved by the commissioner's decision could have appealed to the Superior
Court under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.
The bill’s effective date would have been October 1, 2015
Testifying in support of the bill were Dr. Alice Prichard, Executive Director,
Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF); Todd Burch, Field
Director, CT AFL-CIO; Lindsay Farrell, State Director, Connecticut Working
Families Party; Julie Kushner, Director, and Beverley Brakeman, Political
Representative, United Auto Workers Union (UAW) and Kim Armstrong,
UCONN Graduate Assistant, Member of UAW.
Testifying in opposition to the bill were Steve Weinberger, Vice President for
Human Resources at Eastern Connecticut State University, Fae Brown-Brewton,
Assistant Director, Office of Labor Relations, Office of Policy and Management
(OPM) and Michael Eagen, Director, Office of Faculty & Staff Labor Relations,
University of Connecticut (UConn).
The bill was principally advocated for by the UAW representing Graduate
Assistants who are negotiating a difficult contract.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Labor Committee to the House Floor by
a partisan vote of 6-5. The tally is below.
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
6
5
0
2
TOTALS
11
yea
nay abstain absent
yea
36
Voice Vote
nay abstain absent
Sen. Gomes, E. S23
Rep. Tercyak, P. 026
Sen. Osten, C. S19
Rep. Cuevas, V. 075
Sen. Hwang, T. S28
Rep. Rutigliano, D. 123
Rep. Esposito, L. 116
Rep. Kiner, D. 059
Rep. Luxenberg, K. 012
Rep. McGee, B. 005
Rep. Miner, C. 066
Rep. Smith, R. 108
Rep. Vail, K. 052
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The bill died on the House calendar when it was not called for a vote.
STUDENT RELATED BILLS
SB 929: AN ACT CONCERNING THE STUDENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION AND CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECKS OF
FACULTY MEMBERS OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN
THE STATE. Died.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Republican Reps. Pam Staneski (R-Milford),
Vincent J. Candelora (R-Branford), Whit Betts (R-Bristol) and Gail Lavielle (RWilton); all members of the Higher Education Committee.
This bill became the vehicle to allow the Republicans to have a discussion about
higher education employee criminal background checks. They would be allowed to
have a debate on their amendment for background checks in exchange for not
calling similar amendments they filed on many other bills and for limiting debate
on other bills. The intention by Democrats was to amend and then allow this bill to
die and to insert the original language into the Higher Education technical
revisions bill.
The original bill staggered the terms of student advisory committee members for
the Board of Regents for Higher Education. Under current law, this committee
must consist of one student from each institution in the Connecticut State
37
University System (CSUS) (four total), one from each regional communitytechnical college (CTC) (12 total), and one member from Charter Oak State
College, each serving a two-year term.
The bill required six of the CTC and two of the CSUS members to serve only one
year for the term beginning July 1, 2015. For the term beginning July 1, 2016 and
every term thereafter, these eight members must serve two-year terms. The
remaining nine student members continue to serve standard two-year terms.
Also, the bill made two changes to the committee's leadership. Current law
requires committee members to elect their own chairperson and vice-chairperson to
serve two-year terms; one must be a member from CSUS, and the other must be a
member from a CTC. The bill (1) requires that one leader be from either CSUS or
Charter Oak State College and (2) shortens the leadership terms from two years to
one year. The bill’s effective date was July 1, 2015.
This bill was technical fix to adjust terms in part to ensure that the student
representative to the Board of Regents was indeed still a student.
During the public hearing on the bill, no testimony was submitted in support or
opposition.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee to the
Senate Floor by a vote of 17-0.
Once the bill was taken up in the Senate, it was placed on the consent calendar, and
passed the chamber unanimously.
When the House took up the bill, House Amendment “A” was offered by
Representatives Whit Betts (R-Bristol) and Gail Lavielle (R-Wilton).
The amendment was drafted much more narrowly than any previous amendment. It
allows the school and the constituent unit that has jurisdiction over the school, to
request that a faculty member who is actively under consideration for promotion
submit to a state and national criminal history records check. In making a decision
with regard to promotion of such faculty member, the institution or constituent unit
shall consider the results of such records check. Any school or constituent unit that
requires a faculty member to submit to a criminal history records check is to notify
its governing board of the results prior to making a decision on the promotion.
House Amendment “A” passed on a roll call vote of 96-50. The tally is below.
38
N
ABERCROMBIE
N
LEMAR
Y
ACKERT
N
ADAMS
N
LESSER
Y
ADINOLFI
Y
O'DEA
N
ALBIS
N
LOPES
Y
ALBERTS
Y
O'NEILL
Y
ALEXANDER
N
LUXENBERG
Y
AMAN
Y
PAVALOCK
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
Y
BELSITO
Y
PERILLO
N
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
Y
BERTHEL
Y
PISCOPO
N
ARCONTI
MCGEE
Y
BETTS
Y
REBIMBAS
X MEGNA
Y
BOCCHINO
Y
RUTIGLIANO
N
X NOUJAIM
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
BACKER, T.
N
MILLER, P.
Y
BOLINSKY
Y
SAMPSON
N
BAKER
N
MORIN
Y
BUCK-TAYLOR
Y
SCOTT
N
BARAM
N
MUSHINSKY
Y
BUMGARDNER
Y
SHABAN
Y
NICASTRO
Y
BYRON
Y
SIMANSKI
Y
PERONE
Y
CAMILLO
Y
SMITH
Y
BECKER, B.
X BERGER
Y
BOUKUS
N
PORTER
Y
CANDELORA, V.
Y
SREDZINSKI
N
BRYCKI
N
REED
Y
CARNEY
Y
SRINIVASAN
N
BUTLER
N
RILEY
Y
CARPINO
Y
STANESKI
N
CANDELARIA, J.
N
RITTER
Y
CARTER
Y
TWEEDIE
Y
CONROY
N
ROJAS
Y
CASE
Y
VAIL
Y
COOK
N
ROSARIO
Y
D'AMELIO
Y
WILMS
N
CUEVAS
N
ROSATI
Y
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
N
CURREY
N
ROSE
Y
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
ROVERO
Y
DUBITSKY
Y
ZAWISTOWSKI
Y
D'AGOSTINO
Y
DARGAN
N
SANCHEZ
Y
FERRARO
Y
ZIOBRON
N
DEMICCO
N
SANTIAGO, E.
Y
FLOREN
Y
ZUPKUS
N
DILLON
N
SANTIAGO, H.
Y
FRANCE
Y
SCANLON
Y
FREY
Y
SERRA
Y
GIEGLER
Y
SIMMONS
Y
HARDING
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
X ESPOSITO
Y
FLEISCHMANN
X FOX
Y
Y
Y
FRITZ
N
STAFSTROM
Y
HOYDICK
N
GENGA
N
STALLWORTH
Y
KLARIDES
N
GONZALEZ
N
STEINBERG
Y
KOKORUDA
GUERRERA
N
TERCYAK
Y
KUPCHICK
39
N
Y
N
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
Y
LABRIOLA
HAMPTON
N
URBAN
Y
LAVIELLE
HENNESSY
N
VARGAS
Y
LEGEYT
N
GODFREY (DEP)
VERRENGIA
Y
MACLACHLAN
N
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
WALKER
Y
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
HEWETT
Y
N
JANOWSKI
N
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
Y
MCGORTY, B.
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
Y
MINER
Y
MULLIGAN
Y
N
N
KINER
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
N
Y
RYAN (DEP)
SAYERS (DEP)
The underlying bill, as amended by House Amendment “A”, passed 103-43. The
tally is below.
N
ABERCROMBIE
N
LEMAR
Y
ACKERT
N
ADAMS
N
LESSER
Y
ADINOLFI
Y
O'DEA
N
ALBIS
LOPES
Y
ALBERTS
Y
O'NEILL
LUXENBERG
Y
AMAN
Y
PAVALOCK
Y
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
Y
BELSITO
Y
PERILLO
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
Y
BERTHEL
Y
PISCOPO
MCGEE
Y
BETTS
Y
REBIMBAS
MEGNA
Y
BOCCHINO
Y
RUTIGLIANO
N
N
X NOUJAIM
Y
ARCONTI
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
BACKER, T.
N
MILLER, P.
Y
BOLINSKY
Y
SAMPSON
N
BAKER
N
MORIN
Y
BUCK-TAYLOR
Y
SCOTT
N
BARAM
N
MUSHINSKY
Y
BUMGARDNER
Y
SHABAN
Y
NICASTRO
Y
BYRON
Y
SIMANSKI
Y
PERONE
Y
CAMILLO
Y
SMITH
PORTER
Y
CANDELORA, V.
Y
SREDZINSKI
REED
Y
CARNEY
Y
SRINIVASAN
Y
BECKER, B.
X BERGER
Y
N
Y
BOUKUS
N
N
BRYCKI
Y
N
BUTLER
N
RILEY
Y
CARPINO
Y
STANESKI
N
CANDELARIA, J.
N
RITTER
Y
CARTER
Y
TWEEDIE
Y
CONROY
N
ROJAS
Y
CASE
Y
VAIL
Y
COOK
N
ROSARIO
Y
D'AMELIO
Y
WILMS
40
N
CUEVAS
N
ROSATI
Y
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
N
CURREY
N
ROSE
Y
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
ROVERO
Y
DUBITSKY
Y
ZAWISTOWSKI
Y
D'AGOSTINO
Y
DARGAN
N
SANCHEZ
Y
FERRARO
Y
ZIOBRON
DEMICCO
N
SANTIAGO, E.
Y
FLOREN
Y
ZUPKUS
DILLON
N
SANTIAGO, H.
Y
FRANCE
Y
SCANLON
Y
FREY
Y
SERRA
Y
GIEGLER
Y
SIMMONS
Y
HARDING
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
N
Y
X ESPOSITO
Y
FLEISCHMANN
X FOX
Y
Y
FRITZ
N
STAFSTROM
Y
HOYDICK
Y
GENGA
N
STALLWORTH
Y
KLARIDES
GONZALEZ
N
STEINBERG
Y
KOKORUDA
GUERRERA
N
TERCYAK
Y
KUPCHICK
TONG
Y
LABRIOLA
Y
LAVIELLE
N
Y
N
Y
HADDAD
Y
HAMPTON
N
Y
X URBAN
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
Y
LEGEYT
N
GODFREY (DEP)
HEWETT
Y
VERRENGIA
Y
MACLACHLAN
N
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
WALKER
Y
MCCARTY, K.
N
JANOWSKI
N
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
Y
MCGORTY, B.
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
Y
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
Y
N
KINER
N
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
N
ORANGE (DEP)
Since there was a disagreeing action, and the bill did not pass the House in
concurrence with the Senate, it was sent back to the other chamber for
consideration. It died with no further action. The original provisions of the bill to
adjust student representation on the Board of Regents was drawn up as an
amendment and placed as a substitute amendment on SB 1091 which was passed
by both chambers and is awaiting the Governor’s signature (see below).
41
HB 6118: AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT MEMBERSHIP ON THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT.
Passed. Public Act 15-78. Awaiting the Governor’s signature.
This bill increases the number of UConn Board of Trustee members from 21 to 23
by adding two more student trustees to be elected by the student body. Thus, under
the bill, the board will have a total of four student trustees.
The bill also removes the requirement that student trustees be enrolled as full-time
students at the time of their election; however, the requirement under existing law
that the student be enrolled full-time for the duration of the term of service remains
unchanged.
It also makes various technical changes and is effective upon passage.
This bill was proposed by Rep. Greg Haddad (D-Mansfield) and Sen. Mae Flexer
(D-Killingly), and was drafted into a committee bill by the Higher Education and
Employment Advancement Committee. The introducers co-sponsored the
committee bill along with Eric C. Berthel (R-Watertown), Terry B. Adams (DStamford), Joseph C. Serra (D-Middletown), Sens. Timothy D. Larson (D-East
Hartford), Paul R. Doyle (D-Middletown), Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport), Eric D.
Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Edwin A. Gomes (D-Bridgeport), Joseph J. Crisco (DWoodbridge), Kevin D. Witkos (R-Canton) and Andrew M. Maynard (DStonington).
The committee bill increased the number of UConn Board of Trustee members
from 21 to 23 by adding two more student trustees to be elected by the student
body. Thus, under the bill, the board will have a total of four student trustees.
It also requires UConn students to elect the two additional student trustees by July
1, 2016. Undergraduate students must elect a full-time undergraduate to serve a
two-year term beginning July 1, 2016. Students from the School of Law, School of
Medicine, School of Dentistry, School of Social Work, and graduate students of a
UConn school or college must elect a graduate student to serve a one-year term
beginning July 1, 2016. For subsequent elections, the undergraduate and graduate
student bodies must each elect two trustees to serve two-year terms.
The bill also removes the requirement that student trustees be enrolled as full-time
students at the time of their election; however, the requirement under existing law
that the student be enrolled full-time for the duration of the term of service remains
unchanged.
42
It also makes various technical changes. The bill became effective upon passage.
Testifying in support of the bill were
Representative Eric C. Berthel (R-Watertown), Daniel Byrd, Student, University of
Connecticut; Connor McNaboe, Student, University of Connecticut; Andrew Stern,
Student, University of Connecticut and Adam Kuegler, Student, University of
Connecticut.
No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education
Committee to the House Floor by a vote of 18-0. The substitute language changed
the dates outlined in the bill. It pushed the election and term expiration date of the
two additional trustees up a year.
The bill was taken up in the House, and passed on a roll call vote of 144-1. The
only “no” vote was from Rep. Dan Carter (R-Danbury).
The bill then made its way to the Senate, where it passed unanimously, 36-0. It
became Public Act 15-78, and awaits the Governor’s signature
SB 1091: AN ACT CONCERNING THE STUDENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION. Passed. Public Act 15-248. Awaiting the Governor’s signature.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
CAs of July 1st, this bill staggers the terms of student advisory committee members
for the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR). Under current law, this
committee consists of one student from each institution in the Connecticut State
University System (CSUS) (four total), one from each regional community-technical
college (CTC) (12 total), and one member from Charter Oak State College. Each
member serves two years.
The bill requires six of the CTC and two of the CSUS members to serve only one
year for the term beginning July 1, 2015. For the term beginning July 1, 2016 and
every term thereafter, these eight members must serve two-year terms. The
remaining nine student members continue to serve two-year terms.
Also, the bill makes two changes to the committee's leadership. Current law requires
committee members to elect their own chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve
43
two-year terms; one must be a CSUS member, and the other must be a CTC member.
The bill (1) requires that one leader be from either CSUS or Charter Oak State
College and (2) shortens the leadership terms from two years to one year.
The original bill required the Board of Regents to study:
(1) The transfer and articulation policies and practices in place at the regional
community-technical college system and the Connecticut State University System,
and
(2) The reasons that credits, earned by certain students while enrolled in a degree
program designated as a transfer program at a regional community-technical
college, are not transferring toward the general education core curriculum
requirements of a state university.
The president of the Board of Regents shall report to the Higher Education
Committee the findings of the study by September 1, 2016.
The bill’s effective date is July 1, 2015.
No testimony was submitted in support of the original bill at the public hearing.
Testifying in opposition to the bill were Candace Barrington and Ken Klucznik,
Transfer and Articulation Policy (TAP) Co-managers, Board of Regents for Higher
Education.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee to the
Senate Floor by a vote of 17-0.
Once the bill was taken up, Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Sen. Len
Fasano (R-North Haven), but was withdrawn. It was an amendment that he had
offered on several bills to increase the transparency to the public of the UConn
Foundation. The amendment failed on a voice vote after a lively discussion.
The Senate Amendment “B” was offered by the chairs of the Higher Education
Committee. It struck the underlying bill and required changes to the makeup of
the Board of Regents’ student advisory committee. The amendment passed by
voice vote.
44
Six of the regional Community and technical Colleges and two of the Connecticut
State University System members to serve only one year for the term beginning
July 1, 2015. For the term beginning July 1, 2016 and every term thereafter, these
eight members must serve two-year terms.
The amendment also changed the committee's leadership. Current law requires
committee members to elect their own chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve
two-year terms; one must be a member from the state university system, and the
other must be a member from a community or technical college. The amendment
allows the state university system chair to instead be a member of Charter Oak
State College.
Similar language can also be found in SB 929.
The bill, as amended, passed unanimously by a roll call vote, 34-0.
The bill went to the House, where Senate Amendment “B” was adopted by voice
vote. The underlying bill, as amended, passed in concurrence wit the Senate by a
unanimous vote of 145-0.
The bill is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature.
SB 399: AN ACT CONCERNING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT AND THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR
HIGHER EDUCATION REGARDING FINANCIAL AID AND
REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL FOR THE CLOSURE OF
CERTAIN COLLEGE CAMPUSES AND MANUFACTURING
PROGRAMS. Died. Public Act 15-2 was vetoed by the Governor.
This bill was proposed by Senators Martin Looney (D-New Haven) and Bob Duff
(D-Norwalk). The bill was drafted into a committee bill by the Higher Education
and Employment Advancement Committee, and was co-sponsored by the
introducing legislators, the rest of the Meriden delegation, Representatives
Catherine F. Abercrombie (D-Meriden), Emil Altobello (D-Meriden) and Hilda E.
Santiago (D-Meriden) and Representatives Mary G. Fritz (D-Yalesville),Linda A.
Orange (D-Colchester), Robert Sanchez (D-New Britain), Jeffrey J. Berger (DWaterbury), Theresa W. Conroy (D-Seymour) and Susan M. Johnson (DWindham)
45
The intent of the original bill was to require the University of Connecticut and the
Board of Regents for Higher Education to submit information on the availability
and distribution of financial aid.
Specifically, the University of Connecticut and the Board of Regents for Higher
Education must annually report to the Higher Education Committee on how they
awarded institutional financial aid to undergraduates in the previous academic
year. At a minimum, the report must describe, separately for in-state and out-ofstate students, the aggregate amount of institutional financial aid available, needbased financial aid awarded, and merit-based financial aid awarded. The reports
are due beginning by November 1, beginning in 2015.
During the public hearing held on the original bill, no testimony was submitted in
support or opposition.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee to the
Senate Floor by a vote of 19-0.
Once the bill was taken up, Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Senators
Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Paul Doyle (DMiddletown), Eric Coleman (D-Hartford), Dante Bartolomeo (D-Meriden), Terry
Gerratana (D-New Britain) and Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford), and adopted by voice
vote. The amendment was a technical change.
Then Senate Amendment “B” was offered by Senators Looney, Duff and
Bartolomeo, and was adopted by voice vote. The amendment added a new section
that prohibited the Board of Regents from closing any campus of Middlesex
Community College or suspending the manufacturing program without approval
by the General Assembly. It further stated that Middlesex Community College
shall not close or suspend its manufacturing program without permission from the
General Assembly.
This was in response to the Board of Regent’s action to close the Meriden branch
of Middlesex Community College in response to Governor Malloy’s proposed
budget cuts.
Finally, Senate Amendment “C” was offered by Senators Looney, Duff,
Bartolomeo and Senators Len Fasano (R-North Haven), Kevin Witkos (R-Canton)
and Rob Kane (R-Watertown). It also passed by voice vote. This amendment went
a step further than Senate Amendment “B” by prohibiting the Board of Regents or
46
a public institution of higher education from closing any school or suspending the
manufacturing program of any school without authorization from the General
Assembly. It was offered out of concern that Senate Amendment “B” removed
programmatic discretion from only one institution of higher education but it was
crafted with the intent of making it apply to all of them.
The bill, as amended by Senate Amendments “A”, “B” and “C”, was placed on the
consent calendar, and passed the Senate chamber unanimously.
Senate Amendment “A” was taken up in the House and passed by voice vote.
Senate Amendment “B” was debated, and eventually passed by a roll call vote of
92-51. The tally is below.
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
Y
ACKERT
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
Y
ADINOLFI
N
O'DEA
Y
LOPES
N
ALBERTS
N
O'NEILL
X ALBIS
X NOUJAIM
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
N
AMAN
N
PAVALOCK
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
N
BELSITO
N
PERILLO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
N
BERTHEL
N
PISCOPO
Y
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
N
BETTS
N
REBIMBAS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
N
BOCCHINO
X BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
N
BOLINSKY
N
SAMPSON
Y
BAKER
Y
MORIN
N
BUCK-TAYLOR
N
SCOTT
Y
BARAM
Y
MUSHINSKY
N
BUMGARDNER
N
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
BYRON
N
SIMANSKI
Y
BERGER
Y
PERONE
N
CAMILLO
N
SMITH
X BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
N
CANDELORA, V.
N
SREDZINSKI
N
CARNEY
N
SRINIVASAN
CARPINO
N
STANESKI
Y
Y
RUTIGLIANO
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
Y
CANDELARIA, J.
Y
RITTER
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
Y
CASE
N
VAIL
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
Y
D'AMELIO
N
WILMS
Y
CUEVAS
Y
ROSATI
N
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
Y
CURREY
Y
ROSE
N
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
Y
N
47
CARTER
Y
TWEEDIE
Y
D'AGOSTINO
Y
ROVERO
N
DUBITSKY
Y
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
N
FERRARO
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
Y
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
N
FRANCE
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
N
FREY
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
N
GIEGLER
X FOX
Y
SIMMONS
N
HARDING
X FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
N
HOYDICK
X STALLWORTH
N
KLARIDES
Y
N
Y
FLOREN
ZAWISTOWSKI
ZIOBRON
N
ZUPKUS
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
Y
GENGA
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
STEINBERG
N
KOKORUDA
Y
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
N
KUPCHICK
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
N
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
N
LAVIELLE
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
N
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
Y
HEWETT
Y
VERRENGIA
N
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
WALKER
N
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
Y
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
N
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
N
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
KINER
N
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
X URBAN
In a similar fashion, Senate Amendment “C” was debated, and eventually passed
by a roll call vote of 89-52. The tally is below.
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
Y
LOPES
N
ALBERTS
X ALBIS
N
Y
ACKERT
X NOUJAIM
ADINOLFI
N
Y
O'DEA
O'NEILL
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
N
AMAN
N
PAVALOCK
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
N
BELSITO
N
PERILLO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
BERTHEL
N
PISCOPO
Y
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
N
BETTS
N
REBIMBAS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
N
BOCCHINO
N
RUTIGLIANO
X BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
N
BOLINSKY
BAKER
Y
MORIN
N
BUCK-TAYLOR
Y
Y
48
X SAMPSON
N
SCOTT
Y
BARAM
Y
MUSHINSKY
N
BUMGARDNER
N
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
N
BYRON
N
SIMANSKI
Y
BERGER
Y
PERONE
N
CAMILLO
N
SMITH
X BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
N
CANDELORA, V.
N
SREDZINSKI
N
CARNEY
N
SRINIVASAN
CARPINO
N
STANESKI
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
Y
CANDELARIA, J.
Y
RITTER
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
Y
CUEVAS
Y
Y
CURREY
Y
Y
N
Y
CARTER
Y
TWEEDIE
CASE
N
VAIL
N
D'AMELIO
N
WILMS
ROSATI
N
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
Y
ROSE
N
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
D'AGOSTINO
Y
ROVERO
N
DUBITSKY
N
ZAWISTOWSKI
Y
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
N
FERRARO
N
ZIOBRON
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
FLOREN
N
ZUPKUS
Y
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
N
FRANCE
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
N
FREY
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
N
GIEGLER
X FOX
Y
SIMMONS
N
HARDING
X FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
N
HOYDICK
X STALLWORTH
N
KLARIDES
Y
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
Y
GENGA
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
STEINBERG
N
KOKORUDA
Y
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
N
KUPCHICK
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
N
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
N
LAVIELLE
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
Y
HEWETT
Y
VERRENGIA
N
MACLACHLAN
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
WALKER
N
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
Y
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
N
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
N
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
KINER
N
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
X URBAN
Y
49
X MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
The underlying bill, as amended By Senate Amendment s “A”, “B” and “C”,
passed the House 86-56, in concurrence with the Senate. The tally is below.
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
Y
LOPES
X ALBIS
N
Y
ACKERT
X NOUJAIM
ADINOLFI
N
O'DEA
N
ALBERTS
N
O'NEILL
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
N
AMAN
N
PAVALOCK
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
N
BELSITO
N
PERILLO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
BERTHEL
N
PISCOPO
Y
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
N
BETTS
N
REBIMBAS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
N
BOCCHINO
N
RUTIGLIANO
X BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
N
BOLINSKY
Y
BAKER
Y
MORIN
N
BUCK-TAYLOR
N
SCOTT
Y
BARAM
Y
MUSHINSKY
N
BUMGARDNER
N
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
N
BYRON
N
SIMANSKI
Y
BERGER
Y
PERONE
N
CAMILLO
N
SMITH
X BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
N
CANDELORA, V.
N
SREDZINSKI
N
CARNEY
N
SRINIVASAN
CARPINO
N
STANESKI
Y
X SAMPSON
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
Y
CANDELARIA, J.
Y
RITTER
N
CARTER
N
TWEEDIE
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
N
CASE
N
VAIL
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
N
D'AMELIO
N
WILMS
Y
CUEVAS
Y
ROSATI
N
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
Y
CURREY
Y
ROSE
N
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
Y
D'AGOSTINO
Y
ROVERO
N
DUBITSKY
N
ZAWISTOWSKI
Y
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
N
FERRARO
N
ZIOBRON
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
FLOREN
N
ZUPKUS
Y
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
N
FRANCE
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
N
FREY
Y
Y
50
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
N
GIEGLER
X FOX
Y
SIMMONS
N
HARDING
X FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
N
HOYDICK
X STALLWORTH
N
KLARIDES
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
Y
GENGA
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
STEINBERG
N
KOKORUDA
Y
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
N
KUPCHICK
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
N
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
N
LAVIELLE
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
N
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
Y
HEWETT
Y
VERRENGIA
N
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
WALKER
N
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
Y
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
N
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
N
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
KINER
N
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
X URBAN
The bill became Public Act 15-2, and was sent to the Governor for his signature.
The bill never became law but instead, it died when the Governor vetoed it.
It then went back to the Senate, where it was moved to the Foot of the calendar,
and recommitted to the Higher Education Committee.
SB 950: AN ACT ENABLING THE REFINANCING OF STUDENT LOANS.
Died.
This bill was the Governor’s bill that was introduced by legislative Democratic
leadership: Senate President Pro Temp Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Senate
Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), House Speaker J. Brendan Sharkey (DHamden) and House Majority Leader Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin). It was referred
to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, and was cosponsored by Sen. Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge) and Rep. Robert Sanchez (DNew Britain).
This bill would have allowed the Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental
Loan Authority (CHESLA) to issue loans to certain borrowers in order to refinance
51
public or private student loans, including CHESLA loans. It would have also
allowed Connecticut higher education institutions to similarly issue refinancing
loans. The bill would have required that refinancing loans not exceed the
outstanding aggregate principal amount of the original loan. It would have allowed
CHESLA to establish guidelines, criteria, and procedures for issuing refinancing
loans.
By law, CHESLA may issue tax-exempt bonds backed by the authority's revenues.
Additionally the bill would have allowed CHESLA to issue taxable revenue bonds,
including bonds that are eligible for federal tax credits, exemptions, and payments.
Before issuing such bonds, CHESLA would have had to find that their issuance is
necessary, in the public interest, and in furtherance of the authority's powers and
purposes. (Under the federal Internal Revenue Code, tax-exempt bonds cannot be
used to refinance student loans.)
Under the bill, CHESLA would have had to incorporate information about
refinancing loans (e.g., number of applications received, number of students
assisted) into its annual report. By law, CHESLA would have had to provide the
report to its board of directors, the governor, auditors of public accounts, and the
Education and Finance, Revenue and Bonding committees (CGS § 10a-240).
The bill would have also (1) allowed CHESLA to issue education grants, (2)
revised the membership criteria of CHESLA's board of directors, and (3) made
technical and conforming changes.
The bill’s effective date would have been July 1, 2015.
CHESLA POWERS
Refinancing Loans
The bill would have allowed CHESLA to issue loans to certain borrowers in order
to refinance student loans (i.e., “eligible loans”). Under the bill, an “eligible loan”
would have been a loan that is in repayment that was made (1) by CHESLA or (2)
to a “borrower” by any other private or governmental lender to finance attendance
at a higher education institution. A “borrower” would have been:
1. someone who has an outstanding CHESLA loan,
52
2. an individual who (a) attends a Connecticut higher education institution or who
currently resides in the state and (b) has received or agreed to pay an “education
loan” or
3. a parent who has received or agreed to pay an “education loan” on behalf of a
student who attends a Connecticut higher education institution or currently resides
in the state.
An “education loan” is a loan to (1) a student in or from Connecticut, or a parent of
such a student, to finance attendance at a higher education institution, or (2) a
“borrower” to refinance one or more “eligible loans.”
By law, higher education institutions in Connecticut may issue loans using
proceeds from CHESLA (CGS § 10a-241). By authorizing CHESLA to issue
refinancing loans, the bill would have appeared to similarly authorize Connecticut
higher education institutions to use proceeds from CHESLA to issue refinancing
loans.
Education Grants
The bill would have allowed CHESLA to issue education grants, which the bill
defines as grants, scholarships, fellowships, or other non-repayable assistance
awarded (1) by CHESLA to a student currently residing in Connecticut to finance
his or her attendance at a Connecticut higher education institution or (2) by or on
behalf of such an institution to a Connecticut resident from the proceeds of funds
provided by CHESLA. The bill allows CHESLA to establish guidelines, criteria,
and procedures for issuing education grants.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
By law, CHESLA is governed by a nine-member board of directors. Under current
law, two of the members must be (1) active or retired trustees, directors, officers,
or employees of Connecticut higher education institutions and (2) members of the
Connecticut Health and Educational Facilities' (CHEFA) board of directors. The
bill would have (1) eliminated the requirement that these appointees be members
of CHEFA's board of directors and (2) required that they be (a) Connecticut
residents and (b) appointed by CHEFA's board of directors.
Under current law, the appointees serve on the CHESLA board (1) for as long as
they are on the CHEFA board or (2) until a successor is appointed. Under the bill,
the appointees serve six-year terms.
53
BACKGROUND
Related Bill
HB 6907, reported favorably by the Higher Education Committee, also allows
CHESLA to refinance loans, but caps the interest rate CHESLA may charge
borrowers.
Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Benjamin Barnes,
Secretary, Office of Policy and Management; Jim Horan, Executive Director,
Connecticut Association for Human Services; Jeanette W. Weldon, Executive
Director, Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority (CHESLA);
Alok Bhatt, Legislative Analyst, Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission;
Wayne Locust, Vice President , University of Connecticut, Enrollment; Evan
Preston, State Director, Connecticut Public Interest Research Group (ConnPirg);
Robert Fernandez, Legislative Director, Congress of Connecticut Community
Colleges; Jeff Leake, Vice President, Connecticut Education Association; Tom
Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG); Lindsay
Farrell, Connecticut State Director, Connecticut Working Families; Chris
Henderson, Graduate, University of New Haven and Nancy M. Spagnolo, Bethany,
Connecticut.
No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee to the
Senate Floor by a vote of 17-0. The bill died when the Senate recommitted the bill
to the Higher Education Committee.
HB 5795: AN ACT CONCERNING A DEDUCTION FROM THE
PERSONAL INCOME TAX FOR STUDENT LOAN INTEREST. Died.
This bill was proposed by the Reps. Gregory Haddad (D-Mansfield), Christine
Rosati (D-Killingly) and Sen. Mae Flexer (D-Putnam), and was referred to the
Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, where it was drafted
into a committee bill.
The intent of the bill was to establish a deduction from a student’s State personal
income tax for interest paid on student loans.
54
A public hearing was held on the bill, but no testimony was submitted in support or
opposition to the bill.
HB6915: AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDENT LOAN BILL OF RIGHTS.
Passed. Public Act 15-162. Awaiting Governor’s Signature.
This bill requires the banking commissioner, within available appropriations, to
create a new position in the Banking Department, a student loan borrower
ombudsman, to provide timely assistance to “student loan borrowers”. It establishes
the ombudsman's duties and requires him or her, in consultation with the
commissioner, within available appropriations, to implement and maintain a
prescribed student loan borrower education course.
It also establishes a separate non-lapsing account, within the Banking Fund, called
the student loan ombudsman account to be funded by student loan servicers'
licensing and investigation fees and any other money required by law. The bill
authorizes the commissioner to use the money in the account to implement the
ombudsman position and the education course.
The bill establishes licensure requirements and standards of conduct for student loan
servicers and specifies the scope of services subject to licensure.
The bill authorizes the commissioner to conduct investigations and examinations
and take enforcement action against violators. He must also report annually, starting
by January 1, 2016, to the Banking and Higher Education committees on, among
other things, the overall effectiveness of the ombudsman position.
The final bill eliminates the requirement for the commissioner to allocate $500,000
of nondepository financial institutions' licensing fees to fund the implementation of
the ombudsman position and the education course. Instead, it (1) establishes, within
the Banking Fund, a “student loan ombudsman account” to be funded by student
loan servicers' licensing and investigation fees and any other money required by law
and (2) authorizes the commissioner to use the money in the new account to
implement the position and course within available appropriations.
Most provisions of the bill become effective on July 1, 2016, except the sections on
the implementation of the ombudsman position and the definitions which are
effective October 1, 2015.
55
The original bill was introduced by the Banking Committee and co-sponsored by
Rep. Bill Simanski (R-Granby),Rep. David Zoni (D-Southington), Rep. Roberta
Willis (D-Lakeville), Rep. Matthew Lesser (D-Middletown), Sen. Carlo Leone (DStamford), Rep. John Hampton (D-Simsbury), Rep. Stephen Harding (RBrookfield), Rep. David Arconti (D-Danbury), Rep. Emil Altobello (D-Meriden),
Rep. Jason Rojas (D-East Hartford), Rep. Linda Orange (D-Colchester), Rep.
Livvy Floren (R-Greenwich), Rep. Stephen Dargan (D-West Haven), Rep. Joe
Aresimowicz (D-Berlin), Rep. Christine Rosati (D-Killingly), Rep. Laura Devlin
(D-Fairfield), Rep. Kim Rose (D-Milford), Rep. Janice Giegler (R-Danbury), Rep.
J.P. Sredzinski (R-Monroe), Rep. David Rutigliano (R-Trumbull), Rep. Anthony
D'Amelio (R-Waterbury), Rep. Mike Bocchino (R-Greenwich), Rep. Michelle
Cook (D-Torrington), Rep. Cecilia Buck-Taylor (R-New Milford), Rep. Hilda
Santiago (D-Meriden), Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R-North Haven), Rep. Caroline
Simmons (D-Stamford), Rep. Arthur O'Neill (R-Southbury), Rep. Laura Hoydick
(R-Stratford), Rep. Kathleen McCarty (R-Waterford), Rep. Sean Scanlon (DGuilford), Rep. David Baram (D-Bloomfield), Rep. Devin Carney (D-Old
Saybrook), Sen. Catherine Osten (D-Sprague), Rep. Themis Klarides (R-Derby),
Rep. Gregory Haddad (D-Mansfield), Rep. Vincent Candelora (R-North Branford),
Rep. Robert Sanchez (D-New Britain), Rep. John Frey (R-Ridgefield), Rep. Bob
Godfrey (D-Danbury), Sen. Kevin Witkos (R-Canton), Rep. Prasad Srinivasan (RGlastonbury), Sen. Eric Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Sen. Joseph Crisco (DWoodbridge), Rep. Joseph Serra (D-Middletown), Sen. Martin Looney (D-New
Haven), and Sen. Mae Flexer (D-Killingly).
At the beginning of the session we spoke to Rep. Lesser (D-Middletown), the CoChair of the Banking Committee about having the Committee raise a bill. Other
groups spoke to him as well. We gave him language to submit to the LCO to draft
a bill.
The original bill required the Banking Commissioner to create a new position in
the Banking Department, a student loan borrower ombudsman, to provide timely
assistance to “student loan borrowers.” It establishes the ombudsman's duties and
56
requires him or her, in consultation with the commissioner, to implement and
maintain a prescribed student loan borrower education course.
The bill also required the commissioner to allocate $500,000 from certain licensing
fees to fund the implementation of the new position and the education course.
It established licensure requirements and standards of conduct for student loan
servicers and specifies the scope of services subject to licensure.
The bill provided the commissioner with authority to conduct investigations and
examinations and take enforcement action against violators. He must also report
annually, starting by January 1, 2016, to the Banking and Higher Education
Committees on, among other things, the overall effectiveness of the ombudsman
position.
Testimony in support of the original bill came from Bruce Adams, Acting
Commissioner, Department of Banking; Jane Ciarleglio, Executive Director,
Office of Higher Education; Alok Bhatt, Asian Pacific American Affairs
Commission; Jim Horan, Executive Director, Connecticut Association for Human
Services; Jeanette Weldon, Executive Director, Connecticut Higher Education
Supplemental Loan Authority; Evan Preston, State Director, ConnPIRG; Lindsay
Farrell, Connecticut Working Families Organization; Subira Gordon, AfricanAmerican Affairs Commission; Tom Swan, Executive Director, CT Citizen Action
Group; Vijay Nair, President, Connecticut State University American Association
of Professors; Nancy Spagnolo; The Conngress of CT Community Colleges; Molly
Rockett, Student, UConn; and Dasia Moore, Yale College Democrats.
We developed materials, set up meetings and lobbied members of the Committee
to pass the bill. We worked with coalition partners to advocate for the bill and kept
in touch with the Co-Chairs on the progress of the bill. The Committee passed the
bill unanimously but it was understood that the bill would not pass or get called for
a vote unless the expence was eliminated and the fiscal note was removed.
In the House, a compromise bipartisan amendment, Amenment “A” was offered by
Rep. Matt Lesser (D-Middletown), Sen. Gary Winfield (D-New Haven), Rep. Bill
Simanski (R-Granby), and Sen. Henri Martin (R-Bristol) and it was adopted
unanimously by voice vote. House Amendment “A” replaces the underlying bill
with similar provisions. In doing so, the amendment eliminates the requirement for
57
the commissioner to allocate $500,000 of non-depository financial institutions'
licensing fees to fund the implementation of the ombudsman position and the
education course. Instead, it (1) establishes, within the Banking Fund, a “student
loan ombudsman account” to be funded by student loan servicers' licensing and
investigation fees and any other money required by law and (2) authorizes the
commissioner to use the money in the new account to implement the position and
course within available appropriations. It was generally understood that the
Department of Banking would use an existing position to perform the duties
prescribed in the bill and would find a way to do it without the need for an
increased allocation in the budget.
The House passed the bill unanimously. The Senate also adopted House
Amendment “A” and passed this bill in concurrence on a consent calendar.
Public Act 15-162 awaits the Governor’s signature and has an effective date of
July 1, 2016, except the sections on the implementation of the ombudsman position
and the definitions are effective October 1, 2015.
SB 393: AN ACT REQUIRING A REPORT CONCERNING
INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL AID FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
CONNECTICUT AND THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION. Passed. . Public Act 15-231. Awaiting the Governor’s signature.
This bill was proposed by Senators Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (DNorwalk), Paul Doyle (D-Middletown), Eric Coleman (D-Hartford), Steve Cassano
(D-Glastonbury), Joe Crisco (D-Woodbridge), Dante Bartolomeo (D-Meriden),
Terry Gerratana (D-New Britain), Carlo Leone (D-Stamford), Gayle Slossberg (DMilford), Mae Flexer (D-Killingly) Cathy Osten (D-Norwich) and Tim Larson (Deast Hartford)
The bill was referred to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee for consideration. It was co-sponsored by the aforementioned Senators,
and Representatives Mary Fritz (D-Wallingford), Theresa Conroy (D-Beacon
Falls) and Hilda Santiago (D-Meriden).
The intent of the original bill was to place a cap on the administrative expenses of
the Board of Regents for Higher Education and the University of Connecticut.
For this fiscal year (FY15) and the next (FY16), expenditures for institutional
administration are not to exceed 3.35 percent of the annual General Fund
58
appropriation and operating fund expenditures for neither the Board of Regents for
Higher Education or the University of Connecticut .
Testifying in support of the bill was Senator Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford).
Testifying in opposition to the bill was Erika Steiner, Chief Financial Officer,
Board of Regents for Higher Education.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education
Committee to the Senate Floor by a vote of 14-4. The tally is below. The substitute
language changed the fiscal years in which this bill would apply to FY 16 and FY
17.
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
14
4
0
2
TOTALS
18
yea
Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13
Rep. Willis, R. 064
Sen. Witkos, K. S08
Rep. Betts, W. 078
Sen. Flexer, M. S29
Rep. Lopes, R. 024
Rep. Ackert, T. 008
Rep. Alberts, M. 050
Rep. Bocchino, M. 150
Rep. Candelaria, J. 095
Rep. Carney, D. 023
Rep. Dillon, P. 092
Rep. Gentile, L. 104
Rep. Haddad, G. 054
Rep. Janowski, C. 056
Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017
Rep. MacLachlan, J. 035
Rep. McCrory, D. 007
Rep. Sanchez, R. 025
Rep. Walker, T. 093
nay abstain absent
yea
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
59
Voice Vote
nay abstain absent
Once the bill was taken up, Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Senators
Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Paul Doyle (DMiddletown), Eric Coleman (D-Hartford), Dante Bartolomeo (D-Meriden), Terry
Gerratana (D-New Britain) and Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford), and adopted by voice
vote.
The amendment struck the underlying bill and essentially became the financial aid
transparency bill. It required the University of Connecticut and the Board of
Regents for Higher Education to annually report to the Higher Education
Committee on how they awarded institutional financial aid to undergraduates in the
previous academic year. At a minimum, the report must describe, separately for instate and out-of-state students, the aggregate amount of institutional financial aid
available, need-based financial aid awarded, and merit-based financial aid
awarded. The reports are due beginning by November 1, beginning in 2015.
The bill, as amended, was placed on the consent calendar, and passed the Senate
Chamber unanimously.
When the bill was taken up in the House, Senate Amendment “A” was adopted by
voice vote. The bill, as amended, passed 143-0, in concurrence with the Senate. It
awaits the Governor’s signature.
HB6844: AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY.
Passed. Public Act 15-82. Signed by the Governor on June 22, 2015 and takes
effect on July 1.
The bill was introduced by Rep. J. Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden), Rep. Joe
Aresimowicz (D-Berlin), Sen. Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Sen. Bob Duff (DNorwalk) and co-sponsored by Rep. Robert Sanchez (D-New Britain), Rep. Roland
Lemar (D-New Haven), Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D-Hartford), Rep. Juan Candelaria
(D-New Haven), Rep. Ernest Hewett (D-New London), Rep. Patricia Billie Miller
(D-Stamford), Rep. Hilda Santiago (D-Meriden), Rep. Terry Adams (D-Stamford),
Sen. Timothy Larson (D-East Hartford), Sen. Eric Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Sen.
Edwin Gomes (D-Bridgeport), Sen. Joseph Crisco (D-Woodbridge)
This bill reduces, from four years to two, the number of years of high school
education that certain students must complete in Connecticut to receive in-state
tuition benefits at the state's public higher education institutions.
60
By law, with limited exceptions, eligibility for in-state tuition is based on an
applicant's domicile, which is his or her “true, fixed and permanent home” and the
place where he or she intends to remain and return to when he or she leaves. One of
the exceptions allows a person, except a nonimmigrant alien (someone with a visa
permitting temporary entrance to the country for a specific purpose), to qualify for
in-state tuition if he or she:
1. resides in Connecticut (i.e., maintains a continuous and permanent physical
presence, except for short, temporary absences);
2. attended an in-state educational institution and completed at least four years of
high school in Connecticut (the bill reduces this to two years);
3. graduated from a high school or the equivalent in Connecticut; and
4. is registered as an entering student, or is currently a student at, UConn, a
Connecticut State University, a community-technical college, or Charter Oak State
College.
Students without legal immigration status who meet the above criteria must file an
affidavit with the institution stating that they have applied to legalize their
immigration status or will do so as soon as they are eligible.
The bill was referred to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee. Testifying in support was Werner Oyanadel, Executive Director, Latino
and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission; Wayne Locust, Vice President, Enrollment
Planning & Management, UConn; Sen. Martin Looney; Benjamin Barnes, Secretary,
Office of Policy and Management; Connecticut Students for a Dream; Yanil Teron,
Executive Director, Center for Latino Progress; Mark Overmyer-Velazques,
Associate Professor of History and Director of the Institute of Latino, Caribbean,
and Latin American Studies, UConn; Stephanie Marquez, student at the University
of Connecticut; Meghan Vesel, Former Deputy Director, Brazilian Immigrant
Center; Adan Martinez, Intern, Worker and Immigrants' Rights Advocacy Clinic at
Yale Law School; Junior Sierra, Student, Brien McMahon High School; Alison
Martinez-Carrasco, Member of CT Students for a DREAM; Luis Recoder-Nunez,
Resident of New Britain; Kenneth Reveiz, Member of CT Students for a DREAM;
Joseph Patrick Veloso, Member of CT Students for a DREAM; Jessica Manfredini,
Student and Member of CT Students for a DREAM; and Jesus Cortes-Sanchez.
There was no one who testified in opposition.
61
The Committee approved the bill as below:
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
14
3
0
3
TOTALS
17
yea
Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13
Rep. Willis, R. 064
Sen. Witkos, K. S08
Rep. Betts, W. 078
Sen. Flexer, M. S29
Rep. Lopes, R. 024
Rep. Ackert, T. 008
Rep. Alberts, M. 050
Rep. Bocchino, M. 150
Rep. Candelaria, J. 095
Rep. Carney, D. 023
Rep. Dillon, P. 092
Rep. Gentile, L. 104
Rep. Haddad, G. 054
Rep. Janowski, C. 056
Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017
Rep. MacLachlan, J. 035
Rep. McCrory, D. 007
Rep. Sanchez, R. 025
Rep. Walker, T. 093
nay abstain absent
yea
Voice Vote
nay abstain absent
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
In the House, Rep. Willis (D-Lakeville) proposed House Amendment “A” which
makes certain undocumented immigrants eligible for in-state tuition. It was adopted.
Another amendment, “B,” introduced by Rep. Themis Klarides (R-Derby), Rep.
Craig Miner (R-Litchfield), Rep. Vincent Candelora (R-North Branford), Rep Art
O’Neill (R-Southbury), Rep. Laura Hoydick (R-Stratford), and Rep. Melissa
Ziobron (R-East Haddam) would have added the following passage: "Sec. 501.
(NEW) (Effective July 1, 2016) Notwithstanding any provision of the general
statutes and to the extent permitted by federal law, no person shall qualify for any
state financial assistance or state benefit until such person has resided in the state for
two years or more." This amendment was rejected along party lines. Rep Ziobron
offered another amendment, “C,” that would have added: "Sec. 501. (NEW)
62
(Effective from passage) Each public institution of higher education shall include in
any documentation regarding the cost of tuition at such institution that is sent to a
student of such institution, or a person paying the tuition for such student, language
that notifies such student or person that (1) a certain amount of funds are set aside
from such institution's anticipated tuition revenue to provide tuition waivers, tuition
remissions, grants for educational expenses and student employment for any
undergraduate or graduate student who is enrolled as a full or part-time matriculated
student in a degree-granting program, or enrolled in a precollege remedial program,
and who demonstrates substantial financial need, and (2) a certain additional amount
may be set aside from such anticipated tuition revenue for financial assistance for
students who would not otherwise be eligible for financial assistance but who do
have a financial need as determined by such institution." It was also defeated along
party lines.
The debate on the bill and the amendments was long and drawn out.
The bill passed the House, as amended, 78-70. The tally is below:
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
N
ACKERT
N
NOUJAIM
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
N
ADINOLFI
N
O'DEA
Y
ALBIS
Y
LOPES
N
ALBERTS
N
O'NEILL
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
N
AMAN
N
PAVALOCK
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
N
BELSITO
N
PERILLO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
N
BERTHEL
N
PISCOPO
Y
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
N
BETTS
N
REBIMBAS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
N
BOCCHINO
N
RUTIGLIANO
Y
BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
N
BOLINSKY
N
SAMPSON
Y
BAKER
MORIN
N
BUCK-TAYLOR
Y
BARAM
MUSHINSKY
N
BUMGARDNER
N
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
NICASTRO
N
BYRON
N
SIMANSKI
N
N
Y
N
X SCOTT
BERGER
Y
PERONE
N
CAMILLO
N
SMITH
Y
BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
N
CANDELORA, V.
N
SREDZINSKI
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
N
CARNEY
N
SRINIVASAN
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
N
CARPINO
N
STANESKI
Y
CANDELARIA, J.
N
CARTER
N
TWEEDIE
Y
CONROY
N
CASE
N
VAIL
X RITTER
Y
ROJAS
63
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
N
D'AMELIO
N
WILMS
Y
CUEVAS
Y
ROSATI
N
DAVIS
N
WOOD
Y
CURREY
Y
ROSE
N
DEVLIN
N
YACCARINO
Y
D'AGOSTINO
ROVERO
N
DUBITSKY
N
ZAWISTOWSKI
N
N
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
N
FERRARO
N
ZIOBRON
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
N
FLOREN
N
ZUPKUS
Y
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
N
FRANCE
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
N
FREY
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
N
GIEGLER
Y
SIMMONS
N
HARDING
FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
N
HOYDICK
Y
GENGA
Y
STALLWORTH
N
KLARIDES
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
STEINBERG
N
KOKORUDA
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
N
KUPCHICK
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
N
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
Y
URBAN
N
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
Y
HEWETT
Y
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
X FOX
N
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
LAVIELLE
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
N
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
VERRENGIA
N
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
Y
WALKER
N
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
N
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
N
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
KINER
N
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
N
After limited debate the Senate adopted Amendment “A” and passed the bill in
concurrence with the House 19-13 as below:
Y
1
JOHN W. FONFARA
Y
2
ERIC D. COLEMAN
N 20 PAUL M. FORMICA
Y
3
TIM LARSON
N 21 KEVIN KELLY
Y
4
STEVE CASSANO
Y
22 MARILYN MOORE
5
BETH BYE
Y
23 EDWIN A. GOMES
6
TERRY B. GERRATANA
A
Y
N 7
JOHN A. KISSEL
Y
19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN
N 24 MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN
Y
64
25 BOB DUFF
Y
8
N 9
KEVIN D. WITKOS
PAUL DOYLE
N 26 TONI BOUCHER
Y
27 CARLO LEONE
Y
10 GARY WINFIELD
Y
11 MARTIN M. LOONEY
Y
29 MAE M. FLEXER
12 TED KENNEDY
Y
30 CLARK J. CHAPIN
A
Y
N 28 TONY HWANG
13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO
N 31 HENRI MARTIN
A
14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG
N 32 ROBERT J. KANE
A
15 JOAN V. HARTLEY
Y
N 16 JOE MARKLEY
33 ART LINARES
N 34 LEONARD FASANO
Y
17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR.
N 35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO
Y
18 ANDREW MAYNARD
N 36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ
Public Act 15-82 has been signed by the Governor and takes effect on July 1.
SB 864: AN ACT REQUIRING A STUDY OF THE USE OF MEDICAID TO
COVER THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FOR COLLEGE
STUDENTS. Passed. Special Act 15-5. The Governor signed the bill into law on
June 22, 2015 and it takes effect on July 1, 2015.
The purpose of SB864 is to require a study of the effectiveness of requiring state
Medicaid to pay the cost of institution-sponsored health insurance premiums and
provide supplemental coverage to medically indigent students enrolled in a
constituent unit, or prohibiting a student from opting out of institution-sponsored
health insurance for purposes of qualifying for state Medicaid benefits.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Sen. Eric D. Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Sen.
Edwin A. Gomes (D-Bridgeport), Sen. Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport), Sen. Martin
M. Looney (D-New Haven), Sen. Steve Cassano (D-Manchester), Sen. Carlo
Leone (D-Stamford), Rep. Hilda E. Santiago (D-Meriden) and Sen. Mae Flexer (DDanielson).
The intent of the original bill was to require a study of the effectiveness of (1)
requiring state Medicaid to pay the cost of institution-sponsored health insurance
premiums and provide supplemental coverage to medically indigent students
enrolled in a constituent unit, or (2) prohibiting a student from opting out of
65
institution-sponsored health insurance for purposes of qualifying for state Medicaid
benefits.
Testifying in support of the original bill at the public hearing were Michael
Kurland, Director of Student Health Services, University of Connecticut and The
Department of Social Services.
Testifying in opposition to the bill were Madelynn von Baeyer, UConn Graduate
Assistant and Member of UAW GEU Local 6950 and Marie Brault, also a UConn
Graduate Assistant and Member of UAW GEU Local 6950. They were supporting
a competing bill to provide benefits to graduate students.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee to the
Senate Floor by a vote of 18-2. The “no” votes were Sen. Mae Flexer (DDanielson) and Rep. Greg Haddad (D-Mansfield).
Once the bill was taken up, Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Senators
Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), Eric Colman (DBloomfield), Gayle Slossberg (D-Milford), Terry Gerratana (D-New Britain),
Dante Bartolomeo (D-Meriden) and Paul Doyle (D-Wethersfield), and was
adopted by voice vote.
The amendment makes technical changes and removes the provisions of the bill
that prohibit a student enrolled in a college or university from opting out of health
insurance offered by the school to qualify for Medicaid benefits, and the provision
that has the Department of Social Services, Board or Regents and University of
Connecticut provide recommendations about which option is more effective:
requiring Medicaid to cover student’s health care costs or providing supplemental
insurance for students not covered by any other health insurance plan, who are
eligible for state Medicaid benefits.
The bill was then referred to the Human Services Committee for further
consideration. They favorably reported the bill back to the Senate Floor by a vote
of 16-0.
When the bill arrived in the Senate, it was placed on the consent calendar, and
passed the chamber unanimously. The bill went to the House where Senate
Amendment “A” was adopted by voice vote, and the underlying bill, as amended,
passed 126-17 in concurrence with the Senate. The tally is below.
66
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
Y
ACKERT
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
Y
ADINOLFI
Y
O'DEA
Y
ALBIS
Y
LOPES
Y
ALBERTS
Y
O'NEILL
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
Y
AMAN
Y
PAVALOCK
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
BELSITO
Y
PERILLO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
Y
BERTHEL
Y
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
Y
BETTS
Y
REBIMBAS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
Y
BOCCHINO
Y
RUTIGLIANO
Y
BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
Y
BAKER
Y
MORIN
Y
BUCK-TAYLOR
Y
BARAM
Y
MUSHINSKY
Y
BUMGARDNER
Y
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
Y
BYRON
Y
SIMANSKI
Y
BERGER
Y
PERONE
Y
BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
Y
CANDELORA, V.
Y
SREDZINSKI
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
CARNEY
Y
SRINIVASAN
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
Y
CARPINO
N
STANESKI
Y
RITTER
CARTER
N
TWEEDIE
X CANDELARIA, J.
N
N
N
N
BOLINSKY
N
N
PISCOPO
SAMPSON
X SCOTT
CAMILLO
N
NOUJAIM
N
SMITH
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
Y
CASE
N
VAIL
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
Y
D'AMELIO
N
WILMS
Y
CUEVAS
Y
ROSATI
Y
DAVIS
N
WOOD
Y
CURREY
Y
ROSE
Y
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
X D'AGOSTINO
Y
ROVERO
DUBITSKY
Y
ZAWISTOWSKI
Y
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
FERRARO
Y
ZIOBRON
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
Y
ZUPKUS
Y
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
N
FRANCE
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
N
FREY
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
Y
GIEGLER
Y
SIMMONS
Y
HARDING
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
X FOX
N
Y
X FLOREN
Y
FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
Y
HOYDICK
Y
GENGA
Y
STALLWORTH
Y
KLARIDES
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
STEINBERG
Y
KOKORUDA
Y
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
Y
KUPCHICK
67
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
Y
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
Y
URBAN
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
Y
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
Y
HEWETT
X VERRENGIA
Y
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
Y
JANOWSKI
X WALKER
Y
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
Y
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
Y
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
Y
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
KINER
Y
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
N
LAVIELLE
X GENTILE (DEP)
The bill became Special Act 15-5, and was signed into law by the Governor on
June 22nd.
INSTITUTIONAL BILLS
SB 973: AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS
COMMITTEE CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION CERTIFICATE
PROGRAMS. Died.
This bill was introduced by the Program Review and Investigations Committee.
This bill would have required the Board of Regents for Higher Education (BOR)
and the Office of Higher Education (OHE) to define and monitor sub-baccalaureate
certificate programs offered by higher education institutions and private
occupational schools. The bill would have specified that private occupational
schools include hospital-based occupational schools, barber schools, and
hairdressing schools.
Specifically, the bill would have required BOR, in collaboration with OHE, to (1)
create written definitions for all sub-baccalaureate certificates awarded by higher
education institutions and private occupational schools and (2) report the
completed definitions to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee by January 1, 2016. The definitions aimed to create consistency among
the various certificate programs, according to the bill.
Annually, beginning July 1, 2016, the bill would have also required each in-state
institution or school to submit data to OHE from the previous academic year about
its sub-baccalaureate programs and the types of certificates these programs offer.
68
OHE would have had to develop a uniform format for data submissions. The bill
prescribed a detailed list of data that institutions and schools must submit.
Annually, beginning January 1, 2017, OHE would have had to use the collected
data to compare various types of sub-baccalaureate programs to determine
similarities, student interest in each program and similar programs, and necessity
of each program. By July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, OHE would have had to
post the compiled data on its website so that students and prospective students can
make informed decisions about enrollment in and choice of sub-baccalaureate
certificate programs.
The bill would have also required (1) institutions and schools to develop one-page
fact sheets for each sub-baccalaureate certificate program they offer, (2) BOR to
establish a working group to review all noncredit sub-baccalaureate certificate
programs offered by each regional community-technical college (CTC), and (3)
OHE to create an annual audit program for data samples submitted by institutions
and schools.
The bill’s effective date would have been July 1, 2015.
CERTIFICATE PROGRAM DATA COLLECTION
The bill would have required institutions' and schools' data submissions to OHE
about sub-baccalaureate certificate programs to include:
1. the program's name and subject matter area,
2. total program enrollment,
3. any entry-level requirements for program enrollment,
4. the number and type of certificates the program awarded,
5. whether academic credits are offered as part of the program,
6. whether there is a clear pathway from successful program completion to
enrollment in a related associate degree program,
7. whether the program leads to a credential recognized by the industry for which
the program prepares a student,
69
8. whether a student can combine the certificate awarded upon successful program
completion with any other certificate award upon successful completion of another
sub-baccalaureate program in order to achieve a heightened qualification level for
a particular trade or occupation, and
9. the average length of time for program completion.
AUDIT PROGRAM
The bill would have required OHE to develop an annual audit program for student
data samples from each sub-baccalaureate certificate program offered by higher
education institutions and private occupational schools. OHE would not have been
permitted disclose any personally identifiable student information that it may
obtain from this audit.
PROGRAM FACT SHEETS
Under the bill, each higher education institution and private occupational school
would have had to develop a one-page fact sheet for each sub-baccalaureate
certificate program it offers. The fact sheet would have contained basic program
information to educate potential applicants, including tuition, fees, costs of books
and supplies, room and board, graduation and job placement rates, and average
student debt.
BOR WORKING GROUP
The bill would have also required BOR to establish a working group comprised of
CTC continuing education deans to review all non-credit sub-baccalaureate
certificate programs that CTCs offer. By July 1, 2016, the working group must
design a uniform naming convention for the programs to help students distinguish
between programs with similar yet varied requirements in the same field of study.
The naming convention would have uniformly designated varying programs by
indicating different, enhanced, or more demanding requirements.
Additionally, the working group would have had to review tuition for the
uniformly named sub-baccalaureate certificate programs leading to the same
qualifications. By July 1, 2016, and periodically thereafter at BOR's request, the
review would have determined whether tuition and fee cost variations between the
programs are reasonable.
BACKGROUND
70
Higher Education Institution
A higher education institution is a person, school, board, association, limited
liability company, or corporation licensed or accredited to offer one or more
programs of higher learning leading to one or more degrees (CGS § 10a-34(a)(3)).
Private Occupational School
A private occupational school is a person, board, association, partnership,
corporation, limited liability company, or other entity offering instruction in any
trade or industrial, commercial, service, professional, or other occupation for a
remuneration, consideration, reward, or promise. It does not include (1) publicly
supervised and controlled instruction, (2) employee or member training offered by
a firm or organization, or (3) instruction from a school authorized by the legislature
to confer degrees (CGS § 10a-22a).
Testifying in support of the bill were Dr. David Levinson, Vice President for
Community Colleges, Board of Regents for Higher Education and Jane Ciarleglio,
Executive Director, Office of Higher Education.
No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Program Review
and Investigations Committee to the Higher Education and Employment
Advancement Committee by a unanimous vote. The substitute language would
have allowed the information provided by the cost and outcome reporting system
to include job placement rates of each certificate program, to the extent that they
are available.
Additionally, the original bill would have required the Office of Higher Education
to annually audit a sample of student data from all sub-baccalaureate certificate
programs. The amendment would not have permitted disclosure of any personally
identifiable student information that the Office of Higher Education may obtain
from this audit.
The bill was taken up for consideration by the Higher Education and Employment
Advancement Committee. They reported a substitute version of the bill to the
Senate Floor by a roll call vote of 18-0. The substitute langue would have clarified
that a private occupational school included a hospital-based occupational school,
barber school or hairdressing school.
71
Once the bill was taken up in the Senate, it was placed on the consent calendar, and
passed unanimously.
The bill died on the House calendar when it was not called for a vote.
SB 859: AN ACT CONCERNING PROGRAM APPROVAL FOR
INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. Passed.
Public Act 15-111. Awaiting the Governor’s signature.
The final version of this bill that was passed creates new criteria for program
approval requirements by the Office of Higher Education.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education Committee, and was cosponsored by Sens. Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport), Carlo Leone (D-Stamford),
Edwin A. Gomes (D-Bridgeport), Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge) and Reps.
Gayle J. Mulligan (D-Hebron), David A. Baram (D-Bloomfield) and Prasad
Srinivasan (R-Glastonbury).
This was a dummy bill (a bill that really didn’t do anything but may be needed
later as a vehicle for a matter related to higher education). The intent of the original
bill was to require the Executive Director of the Office of Higher Education to study
issues concerning higher education, and report to the Higher Education Committee
by January 1, 2016.
A public hearing was held on the bill, and no testimony was submitted in support
or opposition.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee by a vote
of 17-0.
Once the bill was taken up, Senate Amendment “A” was offered by Senators
Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Dante Bartolomeo (D-Meriden), Kevin Witkos
(R-Canton) and Representatives Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden), Roberta Willis (DLakeville) and Whit Betts (R-Bristol), and adopted by voice vote.
The amendment struck the original bill and moved that new and revised academic
programs proposed by an independent institution of higher education not be subject
to approval by the Office of Higher Education. This only applies to independent
colleges that have maintained eligibility to participate in federal financial aid
programs and have been a degree granting institution in Connecticut for ten or
72
more years. Those independent colleges exempt from programmatic approval are
to file a list and brief description of new programs introduced in the preceding year
and a list of any existing programs that have been discontinued in the preceding
academic year with the Office of Higher Education.
The bill, as amended, passed the Senate by a roll call vote of 31-3. The tally is
below.
Y
1
JOHN W. FONFARA
Y
19 CATHERINE A. OSTEN
Y
2
ERIC D. COLEMAN
Y
20 PAUL M. FORMICA
Y
3
TIM LARSON
Y
4
STEVE CASSANO
Y
22 MARILYN MOORE
Y
5
BETH BYE
Y
23 EDWIN A. GOMES
Y
6
TERRY B. GERRATANA
Y
24 MICHAEL A. MCLACHLAN
Y
7
JOHN A. KISSEL
Y
25 BOB DUFF
Y
8
KEVIN D. WITKOS
Y
26 TONI BOUCHER
Y
9
PAUL DOYLE
Y
27 CARLO LEONE
Y
10 GARY WINFIELD
Y
28 TONY HWANG
Y
11 MARTIN M. LOONEY
Y
12 TED KENNEDY
Y
30 CLARK J. CHAPIN
Y
13 DANTE BARTOLOMEO
Y
31 HENRI MARTIN
Y
14 GAYLE SLOSSBERG
Y
32 ROBERT J. KANE
N 15 JOAN V. HARTLEY
Y
33 ART LINARES
N 16 JOE MARKLEY
Y
34 LEONARD FASANO
Y
35 ANTHONY GUGLIELMO
A
Y
17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR.
Y
18 ANDREW MAYNARD
21 KEVIN KELLY
N 29 MAE M. FLEXER
A
36 L. SCOTT FRANTZ
The House adopted Senate Amendment “A” by voice vote, and passed the bill,
112-31, in concurrence with the Senate. The vote tally is below.
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
N
Y
ACKERT
ADINOLFI
73
X NOUJAIM
Y
O'DEA
N
ALBIS
N
LOPES
Y
ALBERTS
N
O'NEILL
Y
AMAN
Y
PAVALOCK
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
N
BELSITO
Y
PERILLO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
N
BERTHEL
Y
PISCOPO
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
Y
BETTS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
Y
BOCCHINO
Y
RUTIGLIANO
Y
BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
Y
BOLINSKY
Y
SAMPSON
Y
BAKER
Y
MORIN
X BUCK-TAYLOR
Y
SCOTT
Y
BARAM
Y
MUSHINSKY
Y
BUMGARDNER
Y
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
Y
BYRON
Y
SIMANSKI
Y
BERGER
PERONE
Y
CAMILLO
Y
SMITH
Y
BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
Y
CANDELORA, V.
Y
SREDZINSKI
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
CARNEY
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
CANDELARIA, J.
Y
RITTER
Y
CARTER
N
TWEEDIE
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
Y
CASE
N
VAIL
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
N
N
N
CUEVAS
Y
CURREY
Y
D'AGOSTINO
Y
DARGAN
N
Y
Y
X D'AMELIO
ROSATI
N
N
Y
REBIMBAS
SRINIVASAN
STANESKI
Y
DAVIS
WILMS
N
WOOD
ROSE
Y
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
N
ROVERO
Y
DUBITSKY
Y
ZAWISTOWSKI
N
SANCHEZ
Y
FERRARO
Y
ZIOBRON
Y
ZUPKUS
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
SANTIAGO, E.
DILLON
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
Y
FRANCE
Y
SCANLON
Y
FREY
Y
SERRA
Y
GIEGLER
X FOX
Y
SIMMONS
Y
HARDING
X FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
Y
STALLWORTH
GENGA
N
Y
CARPINO
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
N
N
DEMICCO
X ESPOSITO
Y
N
N
GONZALEZ
N
STEINBERG
GUERRERA
N
TERCYAK
X FLOREN
N
Y
HOYDICK
KLARIDES
N
Y
KOKORUDA
KUPCHICK
74
N
HADDAD
Y
TONG
Y
HAMPTON
Y
URBAN
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
Y
HEWETT
Y
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
Y
JOHNSON
Y
JUTILA
Y
KINER
Y
N
Y
LABRIOLA
LAVIELLE
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
N
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
VERRENGIA
N
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
WALKER
N
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
X WILLIS
Y
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
ZONI
Y
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
The bill became Public Act 15-111, and awaits the Governor’s signature.
SB 898: AN ACT CONCERNING PROFESSIONAL DOCTORAL DEGREE
PROGRAMS. Passed. Public Act 15-37. Signed by the Governor on June 5,
2015.
This bill becomes effective on July first and reassigns the authority and
responsibility for operating certain doctoral programs between the Board of Trustees
for the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) and the UConn Board of
Trustees. (Since 2012, the Board of Regents for Higher Education has served as the
Board of Trustees for the Connecticut State University System.) It grants (1) special
responsibility to the CSUS Board of Trustees to operate professional doctoral degree
programs and (2) exclusive responsibility to the UConn Board of Trustees to operate
programs leading to research doctoral, doctor of medicine, doctor of dental
medicine, and juris doctor degrees.
The bill removes from the UConn Board of Trustees the exclusive responsibility to
operate post-baccalaureate professional degree programs.
It also requires the CSUS Board of Trustees to consider the following elements when
approving professional doctoral degree programs:
1. the effect such a proposed program would have on the budget of the state
university seeking the program,
2. whether expertise in the subject matter of such program currently exists at the
state university,
3. current and projected accreditation standards governing the program, and
75
4. current and projected professional standards in the occupational field for which
students would qualify for employment on graduation from the program.
This bill was a priority bill for the Board of Regents and was introduced by the
Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee at their request, and
was co-sponsored by Rep. Patricia A. Dillon (D-New Haven), Rep. Terrie Wood
(R-Darien), Rep. Janice R. Giegler (R-Danbury), Rep. Theresa W. Conroy (DSeymour), Rep. Devin R. Carney (R-Westbrook), Rep. Noreen S. Kokoruda (RMadison), Rep. Vincent J. Candelora (R-Branford), Sen. Eric D. Coleman (DBloomfield), Rep. Brandon L. McGee (D-South Windsor), Sen. Edwin A. Gomes
(D-Bridgeport), Sen. Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport), Sen. Steve Cassano (DManchester), Sen. Andrew M. Maynard (D-Stonington) and Sen. Carlo Leone (DStamford).
The original bill reassigned the authority and responsibility for operating certain
doctoral programs between the Board of Trustees for the Connecticut State
University System (CSUS) and the UConn Board of Trustees. (Since 2012, the
Board of Regents for Higher Education has served as the Board of Trustees for the
Connecticut State University System.) It grants (1) special responsibility to the
CSUS Board of Trustees to operate professional doctoral degree programs and (2)
exclusive responsibility to the UConn Board of Trustees to operate programs
leading to research doctoral, doctor of medicine, doctor of dental medicine, and
juris doctor degrees.
The bill removed from the UConn Board of Trustees the exclusive responsibility to
operate post-baccalaureate professional degree programs.
BACKGROUND
Professional Doctoral Degrees
Professional doctoral degrees emphasize skills, practical knowledge, and
application of research to practical clinical experience.
Research Doctoral Degrees
Research doctoral degrees, or PhDs, focus on developing new knowledge in a field
of study and are primarily the purview of research universities.
Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Susan Pease, Dean of
the Ammon College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Central Connecticut State
76
University; Joan Dobbins, Program Director of the Nurse Anesthesia Program,
Central Connecticut State University and Hartford Hospital; Mary A. Papazian,
President, Southern Connecticut State University; Sandra Bulmer, Interim Dean for
the School of Health and Human Services, Southern Connecticut State University;
Dr. Merle Harris, Member, Board of Regents; Terri Williams, Assistant Program
Director, Nurse Anesthesia Program of Hartford; Christopher Bartels, Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetist & Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, Connecticut
Association of Nurse Anesthetists and Dr. Mary Jane M. Williams, Chair
Government Relations, Connecticut Nurses Association.
No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education
Committee to the Senate Floor by a vote of 18-0. The substitute language added a
new subsection that requires the CSUS Board of Trustees to consider the following
elements when approving professional doctoral degree programs:
1. the effect such a proposed program would have on the budget of the state
university seeking the program,
2. whether expertise in the subject matter of such program currently exists at the
state university,
3. current and projected accreditation standards governing the program, and
4. current and projected professional standards in the occupational field for which
students would qualify for employment on graduation from the program.
Once the bill was taken up in the Senate, it was placed on the consent calendar and
passed the chamber unanimously, 33-0 in early May. The bill went to the House,
where it sat on the calendar. The House wasn’t passing any Senate bills at this
point. Because it was sitting on the calendar it became a potential target for
unfriendly higher education amendments. The concern was that it would have an
amendment filed that would open up the UConn Foundation or a criminal
background check amendment. Because of the unwillingness to debate those issues
in the House given the amount of time it would take and the divisiveness of those
issues in the Democratic Caucus, either of those amendments would keep the bill
from being called for a vote. In fact, Rep. Betts (R-Bristol) and Rep. Lavielle (R77
Wilton) filed an amendment for criminal background checks. This was the same
amendment that they filed on many bills. We lobbied to get the amendment
removed to help get the bill called. It finally was called and passed the House
unamended and unanimously, 147-0 on the 21st of May. It became Public Act 1537, and was signed into law by the Governor on June 5, 2015.
SB1098: AN ACT CONCERNING TEACHER CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORTAGE AREAS, INTERSTATE
AGREEMENTS FOR TEACHER CERTIFICATION RECIPROCITY,
MINORITY TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION AND
CULTURAL COMPETENCY INSTRUCTION. Passed. Public Act 15-108.
Awaiting the Governor’s signature.
The original bill permitted the State Board of Education to issue a temporary
ninety-day certificate in the endorsement areas of teacher shortage areas, to require
the Commissioner of Education to enter teacher certification reciprocity
agreements with other states, to make revisions to the teacher certification statutes
relating to the certification requirements for out-of-state teachers, testing
requirements, the endorsement in elementary education, the alternative route to
certification program for school administrators and early childhood educators, to
require the Department of Education to study and develop strategies to increase
minority teacher recruitment and retention, to expand the municipal aid for new
educators grant program, and to include cultural competency instruction in teacher
preparation programs and in-service training for educators.
This bill was introduced by the Education Committee and co-sponsored by Rep.
Bruce Morris (D-Norwalk), Rep. Douglas McCrory (D-Hartford), Rep. Patricia
Billie Miller (D-Stamford), Rep. Matthew Ritter (D-Hartford), Rep. Jason Rojas
(D-East Hartford), Rep. Peter Tercyak (D-New Britain), Rep. Brandon McGee (DHartford), Rep. Ernest Hewett (D-New London), Rep. Ezequiel Santiago (DBridgeport), Sen. Eric Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Rep. Robert Sanchez (D-New
Britain), Rep. Juan Candelaria (D-New Haven), Rep. Robyn Porter (D-New
Haven), Rep. Terrie Wood (R-Darien), Rep. Christopher Rosario (D-Bridgeport),
Rep. Mary Fritz (D-Yalesville), Rep. Elizabeth Boukus (D-Plainville), Rep. Linda
Gentile (D-Ansonia), Rep. Hilda Santiago (D-Meriden), Rep. Kathleen McCarty
(R-Waterford), Rep. Larry Butler (D-Waterbury), Rep. David Baram (DBloomfield), Rep. Terry Adams (D-Stamford), Sen. Martin Looney (D-New
Haven), Sen. Timothy Larson (D-East Hartford), Sen. Paul Doyle (DWethersfield), Sen. Terry Gerratana (D-New Britain), Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk),
78
Sen. Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport), Sen. Carlo Leone (D-Stamford), Sen. Edwin
Gomes (D-Bridgeport), Sen. Joseph Crisco (D-Woodbridge), and Rep. Joseph
Serra (D-Middletown). The original bill would have allowed the State Board of
Education to make changes in teacher certification laws in Connecticut. It would
also have helped to make it easier for teachers living out of state to become
certified in Connecticut. This bill also would have focused on the recruitment and
retention of minority teachers.
Testimony in support came from Orlando Rodriguez, Connecticut Latino and
Puerto Rican Affairs Commission; Subira Gordon, Connecticut African-American
Affairs Commission; Steven Hernandez, Connecticut Commission on Children;
Jennifer Alexander, ConnCAN; Jennifer Herz, CBIA; Nate Snow, Teach for
American, Connecticut; Robert Hannafin, Fairfield University; Connecticut
Association of Boards of Education,Inc; Yam Menon, ConnCAN; Jack Bryant,
Stamford NAACP; Dr. James Thompson Jr., Bloomfield Public Schools; and
Jeffery VIllar, Ph.D., CCER.
Testimony in opposition came from Dianna Wentzell, Interim Commissioner,
Connecticut Department of Education; Jane Ciarleglio, Connecticut Office of
Higher Learning; Linette Branham, CEA; and Stephen McKeever, AFT
Connecticut.
The bill was approved by the Committee unanimously. It made two changes: on
line 102, changed “An applicant with [three or more years of] teaching” to “An
applicant with [three] two or more years of teaching.” And on line 115/116, strike
“as amended by this act.”
The Senate adopted Amendment “A,” as introduced by Sen. Gayle Slossberg (DMilford) and Rep. Andy Fleischmann (D-West Hartford) was adopted. It (1) strikes
the sections on (a) elementary school teacher endorsements and (b) deadlines to
create new ARC programs for administrators and early childhood education
teachers, (2) replaces the provision requiring SDE to study and report on minority
teacher recruitment with a provision creating a minority teacher recruitment task
force, and (3) makes other minor changes.
The Senate passed the bill as amended on a consent calendar and it was transmitted
to the House. The House referred the bill to the Appropriations Committee who
approved a unanimous Joint Favorable. The House adopted Senate Amendment A
and passed the bill in concurrence.
79
The bill as passed decreases, from three to two years, the number of years of teaching
experience an out-of-state teacher needs to qualify for a professional teacher
certificate. Certification is the credential that authorizes a person to teach in
Connecticut public schools.
It also:
1. allows teacher shortage area applicants to receive 90-day temporary teacher
certificates as the law already allows for those who finish an alternative route to
certification (ARC) program;
2. requires the State Department of Education (SDE) to establish or join interstate
agreements to facilitate certification of qualified out–of-state teachers;
3. creates an 11-member minority teacher recruitment task force and requires it to
submit its report and recommendations to the Education Committee by February 1,
2016;
4. requires the Office of Higher Education (OHE) to issue an annual demographics
report on candidates enrolled in teacher preparation programs;
5. adds training in cultural competency to the teacher preparation and in-service
training laws; and
6. makes minor, technical, and conforming changes to teacher certification law.
Public Act 15-108 now awaits the Governor’s signature. It has an effective date of
July 1, 2015, except that the minority teacher recruitment task force section
becomes effective upon passage.
HB7021: AN ACT CONCERNING TEACHER PREPARATION
PROGRAM EFFICACY. Passed. Public Act 15-231 Awaiting Governor’s
Signature.
This bill requires that starting July 1, 2016, all teacher preparation programs in the
state place their students, as part of their field work or student teaching classroom
experience, at (a) a school in a school district that receives federal Title I school
improvement grants and (b) one that does not and that by July 1, 2015, the State
Department of Education annually report on the quality of in-state teacher
preparation programs to the legislature’s Education and Higher Education
Committees.
80
The bill was introduced by the Education Committee and was co-sponsored by
Rep. Bruce Morris (D-Norwalk), Rep. Douglas McCrory (D-Hartford), Sen. Eric
Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Rep. Robert Sanchez (D-New Haven), Rep. Juan
Candelaria (D-New Haven), Rep. Andrew Fleischmann (D-West Hartford), Rep.
Pam Staneski (D-Milford), Sen. Joseph Crisco (D-Woodbridge), Sen. Edwin
Gomes (D-Bridgeport)
The original bill would have required that:
1. starting July 1, 2016, all teacher preparation programs in the state to have placed
their students, as part of their field work or student teaching classroom experience,
at (a) a school in a school district that receives federal Title I school improvement
grants and (b) one that does not and
2. by July 1, 2015, the State Department of Education (SDE) to annually have
reported on the quality of in-state teacher preparation programs to the Education and
Higher Education and Employment Advancement committees.
Testimony in support came from Jacob Easley, Dean of Education and
Professional Studies, Eastern Connecticut State University; Jeffrey Villar,
Executive Director, Connecticut Council for Education Reform; Jennifer
Alexander, Chief Executive Officer, ConnCAN; Nate Snow, Executive Director,
Teach for America, Connecticut; Stephen McKeever, First Vice President, AFT
Connecticut AFL-CIO; Yamuna Menon, Director of Research & Policy,
ConnCAN; Dr. James Thompson Jr., Superintendent of Bloomfield Schools; and
Jack Bryant, President, Stamford NAACP. Testimony with comments and
concerns came from Interim Commissioner of Education Dianna R. Wentzell and
Jane A. Ciarleglio, Executive Director, Office of Higher Education. Testimony in
opposition came from Kevin G. Basmadjian, Dean, Quinnipiac University School
of Education; Linette Branham, Director of Policy, Research, and Reform for the
Connecticut Education Association; Robert D. Hannafin, Dean, Graduate School
of Education and Allied Professionals, Sacred Heart University; and Aram Ayalon,
Professor, Central Connecticut State University.
The bill was approved with substitute language that made the Department of
Education and not the Office of Higher Education in charge of determining which
districts fall into which category based on school improvement grant awards.
It was passed unanimously.
81
In the House, Rep. Fleischmann (D-West Hartford) and Sen. Gayle Slossberg (DMilford) introduced House Amendment “A” which replaces Section 2 with the
following text: “On and after July 1, [2015] 2016, any program of teacher
preparation leading to professional certification shall require, as part of the
curriculum, clinical experience, field experience or student teaching experience in
a classroom during four semesters of such program of teacher preparation. Such
clinical experience, field experience or student teaching experience shall occur: (1)
In a school district that has been categorized by the Department of Education as
District Reference Group A, B, C, D or E, and (2) in a school district that has been
categorized by the department as District Reference Group F, G, H or I. Such
clinical experience, field experience or student teaching experience may include a
cooperating teacher serving as a mentor to student teachers, provided such
cooperating teacher has received a performance evaluation designation of
exemplary or proficient, pursuant to section 10-151b, for the prior school year."
The bill was then passed unanimously in the House and transmitted to the Senate.
The Senate adopted House Amendment “A” and passed the bill in concurrence on
a consent calendar.
The bill awaits the Governor’s signature and has an effective date of July 1, 2015.
SB 1102: AN ACT CONCERNING CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATORS. Died. There is a good chance this bill will
be taken up in the special session as part of a budget implementer. There is
money for this legislation in the budget.
This bill was introduced by the Committee, and was co-sponsored by Rep. Robert
Sanchez (D-New Britain).
This bill would have made several changes to the bilingual teacher certification
and the international teacher permit laws, making it easier for applicants to obtain
these credentials. Among other things, it would have set conditions under which
the State Board of Education (SBE) can extend temporary certifications for
bilingual teachers for an additional two years and would have allowed it to grant
international teacher permits to bilingual education teachers who complete SBEprescribed coursework training in lieu of a bachelor's degree.
82
It would have also required any unexpended bilingual education grant money to be
distributed on a proportionate basis to all school districts that receive a bilingual
education grant.
The bill’s effective date would have been July 1, 2015.
Testifying in support of the bill at the public hearing were Dianna R. Wentzell,
Interim Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Education; Orlando Rodriguez,
Associate Legislative Analyst, Connecticut Latino & Puerto Rican Affairs
Commission and Linette Branham, Director of Policy, Research and Reform,
Connecticut Education Association (CEA).
Testifying in opposition to the bill was Stephen McKeever, Vice President,
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Connecticut.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Education
Committee to the Senate Floor by a vote of 33-0. The substitute language added
provisions to the bill that would have allowed for unexpended bilingual educator
training and recruitment grant funds to be distributed on a pro-rated basis to each
local or regional board of education receiving a grant after November 1st. It would
have also added a requirement that international educators teaching a bilingual
program in a Connecticut classroom complete coursework, or training prescribed
by the State Board of Education, to achieve proficiency deemed equivalent to a
bachelor's degree.
When the bill was taken up in the Senate, it was placed on the consent calendar and
passed unanimously, 35-0.
The bill died on the House calendar when it was not called for a vote in the crush
of business at the end of the session.
SB 931: AN ACT CONCERNING REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLEGE
TEXTBOOKS. Died.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Senators Kevin D. Witkos (R-Canton), Henri
Martin (R-Bristol) and Rep. Emmett D. Riley (D-Norwich). It was the principle
idea of Rep. Bobby Sanchez (D-New Britain) who has a son who attends Central
Connecticut State University.
83
This bill would have prohibited Connecticut public higher education institutions
and their faculty members from requiring students to use a new edition of a
textbook, within three years of its most recent previous publication, as part of an
academic course.
The state's public higher education institutions consist of UConn, Connecticut State
University System institutions, regional community-technical colleges, and Charter
Oak State College.
The bill’s effective date would have been is July 1, 2015.
No testimony was submitted in support of the bill. Legislators have become
increasingly concerned about the cost of a college education in Connecticut,
particularly at the public universities. Students are paying a higher percentage of
university costs than ever before. Legislators see controlling extraneous costs as a
way of helping with affordability.
Testifying in opposition to the bill were Martha Bedard, Vice Provost, University
of Connecticut and David E. Anderson, Executive Director, Higher Education
Association of American Publishers.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee to the
Senate Floor by a vote of 17-0.
Once the bill was taken up in the Senate, it was placed on the consent calendar and
passed the chamber unanimously.
We worked with education, union and the publishing lobby to ensure that
legislators knew of our concerns with the bill. We negotiated with Rep. Bobby
Sanchez (D- New Britain) and Rep. Greg Haddad (D-Storrs) to try and arrive at a
bill that could work for everyone. Rep. Haddad was the principle proponent of
another textbook related bill, HB 6117, that we could use if we arrived at an
agreement. Rep. Sanchez came to understand the difficulties and concerns with his
bill and was willing to work with us.
The bill died on the House calendar when it was not called for a vote.
84
HB 6117: AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF DIGITAL OPENSOURCE TEXTBOOKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Passed. S.A. 15-18
Awaiting the Governor’s signature.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Reps. Roberta B. Willis (D-Lakeville),
Gregory Haddad (D-Mansfield), Whit Betts (R-Bristol), Robert Sanchez (D-New
Britain), Livvy R. Floren (R-Greenwich), David Zoni (D-Southington), Terry B.
Adams (D-Stamford), Gayle J. Mulligan (R-Hebron), Devin R. Carney (RWestbrook), Cecilia Buck-Taylor (R-New Milford), Rep. Vincent J. Candelora (RBranford) and Sens. Mae Flexer (D-Brooklyn), Kevin D. Witkos (R-Canton),
Catherine A. Osten (D-Sprague) and Henri Martin (B-Bristol).
The original bill required the Board of Regents for Higher Education, by
September 1, 2015 and in collaboration with the UConn Board of Trustees and the
Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges, to establish an open-source
textbook consortium. The consortium must have at least five higher education
institutions, including UConn, a state university, a regional community-technical
college, Charter Oak State College, and one independent institution.
The bill would have required the consortium to annually (1) assess the use of highquality and affordable digital open-source textbooks and related materials to lower
students' higher education costs, (2) promote the use of and access to open-source
textbooks, and (3) collaborate to develop and acquire open-source textbooks.
Under the bill, an “open-source textbook” is a college-level textbook licensed
under an open copyright license and made available on the Internet to be freely
used by students, faculty, and the public.
The consortium would have had to report on its duties annually beginning January
1, 2016 to the Higher Education Committee.
Testifying in support of the bill were
Subira Gordon, Legislative Analyst, African- American Affairs Commission;
Kevin Corcoran, Executive Director, Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium;
Judith B. Greiman, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges;
Evan Preston, State Director, Connecticut Public Interest Research Group
(ConnPIRG); James Boissy, Student, Trinity College; Yevgeniya Zhukova,
Student, University of New Haven; Tyler Williams, Student, University of
Connecticut; Stephanie Abadom, Student, University of Connecticut; Saman
85
Azimi, Student, University of Connecticut; Thomas McGlone, Student, University
of Connecticut; Mark Guerrera, Student, Central Connecticut State University;
Christian Allyn, Student, University of Connecticut; Andre Bent, Student,
University of Connecticut; Eduardo Gonzalez, Student, University of Connecticut;
Hannah Tripp, Student, University of Connecticut; Hayley Rowe, Student,
University of Connecticut; Joseph Tomastik, Student, University of Connecticut;
Katelyn Burke, Student, University of Connecticut; Raekwon Wheeler, Student,
Trinity College; Olivia Alsip, Student, University of Hartford; Oluwatoyin
Akinnusotu, Student, University of Connecticut; Molly Schineller, Student, Trinity
College and Matthew Pilkiewicz, Student, Trinity College.
Testifying in opposition to the bill was David Anderson, Executive Director,
Higher Education Association of American Publishers
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee by a vote
of 19-0.
Once the bill was taken up in the House, Amendment “A” was offered by Reps.
Roberta Willis (D-Lakeville), Greg Haddad (D-Mansfield), Whit Betts (R-Bristol),
Tim LeGeyt (R-Canton), Sens. Dante Bartolomeo (D-Meriden) and Mae Flexer
(D-Killingly). The amendment was adopted by voice vote. House Amendment “A”
was a strike all that established an open-source textbook pilot program and a task
force to study best practices with regard to open educational resources. Rep.
Haddad worked with us for several weeks try to find a way to make the original
bill work and we all realized that it wasn’t going to be that easy and that there
probably wasn’t enough time left in the session. Because this issue is going to be
around for awhile, it was felt that an effort to get everyone with an interest together
in the same room to try to find a way to find common ground would be good. The
Amendment was a way to do that. The amendment includes a place at the table for
CSU-AAUP and the appointing authority is the Minority Leader of the House Rep.
Themis Klarides (R-Derby). The Amendment also incorporates the three existing
pilots in the three systems into the report.
The pilot program is to assess the use of high-quality digital open-source text
books, and promote the use of and access to open-source textbooks within their
respective constituent units. By July 1, 2016, the Presidents of the Board of
Regents for Higher Education and the University of Connecticut shall report to the
Higher Education Committee the progress of the pilot programs. This section is
effective July1, 2015.
86
The task force is to consider the development of a program to incentivize the
creation or adaptation of open educational resources that will reduce the cost to
students for course materials. We had stressed throughout the negotiating process
that incentivization was the way to proceed. The task force includes in its
membership one faculty member and one administrator of the Connecticut State
University System; appointed by the Minority Leader of the House. They are to
submit their findings to the Higher Education Committee by October 1, 2016. This
section is effective upon passage.
The understanding in moving this bill forward was that the other more onerous bill
( SB 931 ) would not be called and would be allowed to die. The bill, as amended,
passed the House chamber unanimously by a roll call vote of 144-0.
The bill was transmitted to the Senate where House Amendment “A” was adopted
by voice vote, and the bill, as amended, was placed on the consent calendar. It
passed in concurrence with the House. It is Special Act 15-18. It awaits the
Governor’s signature.
HB 6695: AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE HIGHER
EDUCATION STATUTES. Passed. Public Act 15-63. The Governor signed the
bill on June 22, 2015 and it takes effect immediately.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Rep. Terry B. Adams (D-Stamford).
This bill makes technical changes to the education and higher education statutes. It
is effective upon passage.
A public hearing was held on the bill. No testimony was submitted in support or
opposition to the bill. Instead, Kyle Thomas, Legislative Program Manager from
the Board of Regents for Higher Education, submitted testimony that offered three
amendments to the bill. We reviewed the suggestions and they were all statutory
corrections of little consequence.
The bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education Committee to the
House Floor by a vote of 19-0.
The bill was taken up in the House where it passed 143-0. It then passed the Senate
unanimously, 36-0.
87
The bill became Public Act 15- 63, was signed by the Governor and is already in
effect.
HB 6715: AN ACT REQUIRING CONNECTICUT TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE STATE AUTHORIZATION RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT
REGARDING DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAMS. Died.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Sen. Toni Boucher (R-Wilton). This bill was
a priority bill of the Committee’s Co-Chair, Rep. Roberta Willis (D-Salisbury) and
of the New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) of which Rep. Willis is
on the Executive Committee. NEBHE has a relationship with the National Council
for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA).
The legislators were reacting to several incidents in which out of state on-line
educational institutions scammed Connecticut residents. These incidents
highlighted the need to address better how to deal with this problem. Part of the
motivation for this was also the strong desire of Charter Oak College to reduce the
expense of paying registration and licensing fees in every State. Currently they pay
fees in almost every State except those that have reciprocity agreements.
The Department of Higher Education preferred a scheme in which they would
establish reciprocity which would still allow the State of Connecticut to hold to its
own higher standard and that would allow greater consumer protections than those
offered through SARA. The Department believes that they are close to an
agreement with Massachusetts that would establish a framework that could be used
for other States.
This bill would have required the Office of Higher Education (OHE), by January 1,
2016, to enter into a multistate or regional reciprocity agreement to allow
Connecticut and its higher education institutions to participate in a nationwide state
authorization reciprocity agreement on distance learning programs. The agreement
would have had to(1) establish uniform standards across states and (2) eliminate
the need for participating states to assess the quality of a program offered by an
out-of-state institution. (Presumably, the participating state would accept the
authorization that an institution obtains from its home state.)
By law, a person, school board, association, or corporation must be licensed by
OHE to operate a program of higher learning or higher education institution in
Connecticut (CGS § 10a-34 et seq.). The bill allows out-of-state institutions that
participate in the reciprocity agreement to operate in Connecticut, without
88
licensure from OHE, in accordance with the agreement's uniform standards. They
may do so upon OHE entering into the agreement.
Testifying in support of the bill were Jane A. Ciarleglio, Executive Director, Office
of Higher Education; Colonel (Ret) Harold Cooney, Northeast Region Liaison,
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; Ed Klonoski, President,
Charter Oak State College; Cynthia Gallatin, Associate Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer for Online Program, Quinnipiac University; Jennifer Herz,
Assistant Counsel, Connecticut Business and Industry Association; Ruth
Weissman, Chief Academic Officer, Wesleyan University; Michelle Kalis,
Provost, University of Saint Joseph; Dr. R.J McGivney, Assistant Provost for
Online Programs, University of Hartford and Michael Thomas, President and Chief
Executive Officer, New England Board of Higher Education.
No formal testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill. Although the
Department of Higher Education testified in support, they wanted changes that
would substantially change the bill and allow them to direct a program of their own
creation. They became the most outspoken opponents of the bill and ultimately
prevailed.
AAUP CSU created materials and we met with several legislators to express our
concern for the provisions of the bill as drafted. We distributed documents that
outlined problems with SARA in other states.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education
Committee to the House Floor by a vote of 14-3. The tally is posted below. The
substitute language allows an out-of-state institution of higher education that
participates in the reciprocity agreement to operate in this state upon the Office of
Higher Education entering into such multistate or regional reciprocity agreement.
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
14
3
0
3
TOTALS
17
yea
Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13
Rep. Willis, R. 064
Sen. Witkos, K. S08
Rep. Betts, W. 078
Sen. Flexer, M. S29
Rep. Lopes, R. 024
nay abstain absent
yea
X
X
X
X
X
X
89
Voice Vote
nay abstain absent
X
Rep. Ackert, T. 008
Rep. Alberts, M. 050
Rep. Bocchino, M. 150
Rep. Candelaria, J. 095
Rep. Carney, D. 023
Rep. Dillon, P. 092
Rep. Gentile, L. 104
Rep. Haddad, G. 054
Rep. Janowski, C. 056
Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017
Rep. MacLachlan, J. 035
Rep. McCrory, D. 007
Rep. Sanchez, R. 025
Rep. Walker, T. 093
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee for further consideration.
We had met with Rep Willis about our concerns with the bill and we did a rough
vote count. We also had numerous conversations with the Department of Higher
Education. The maneuvering around the bill was intense as the Appropriations
Committee met. It looked like the vote was going to be close and legislative
supporters and opponents were both lobbying energetically. When the roll call was
taken it looked like the bill was going to pass but by a narrow margin. Opposing
lobbyists and we spoke to key legislators and they switched their votes and the
measure failed. The vote tally was 30-24and is below:
Voting
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Absent and Not
Voting
24
30
0
3
TOTALS
54
yea
Sen. Bye, B. S05
Rep. Walker, T. 093
Sen. Hartley, J. S15
Rep. Genga, H. 010
Rep. Porter, R. 094
Sen. Kane, R. S32
Rep. Ziobron, M. 034
Rep. Abercrombie, C. 083
nay abstain absent
Voice Vote
yea
X
Sen. Kissel, J. S07
Rep. Kokoruda, N. 101
Rep. Lavielle, G. 143
Rep. LeGeyt, T. 017
Rep. Lesser, M. 100
Sen. Markley, J. S16
Rep. McCarthy Vahey, C. 133
Rep. McCarty, K. 038
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
90
nay abstain absent
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rep. Aman, W. 014
Rep. Baker, A. 124
Sen. Bartolomeo, D. S13
Rep. Belsito, S. 053
Rep. Betts, W. 078
Rep. Bolinsky, M. 106
Rep. Candelaria, J. 095
Rep. Case, J. 063
Sen. Chapin, C. S30
Rep. Cuevas, V. 075
Rep. Currey, J. 011
Rep. Dillon, P. 092
Rep. Ferraro, C. 117
Rep. Fleischmann, A. 018
Sen. Flexer, M. S29
Sen. Formica, P. S20
Rep. France, M. 042
Sen. Gerratana, T. S06
Rep. Gonzalez, M. 003
Rep. Haddad, G. 054
Rep. Hewett, E. 039
Rep. Johnson, S. 049
X
Rep. McCrory, D. 007
Rep. McGorty, B. 122
Rep. Miller, P. 145
Rep. Miner, C. 066
Rep. Mulligan, G. 055
Rep. O'Neill, A. 069
Rep. Orange, L. 048
Rep. Rosario, C. 128
Rep. Ryan, K. 139
Rep. Santiago, E. 130
Sen. Slossberg, G. S14
Rep. Tercyak, P. 026
Rep. Tweedie, M. 013
Rep. Urban, D. 043
Rep. Vargas, E. 006
Rep. Willis, R. 064
Rep. Wilms, F. 142
Sen. Winfield, G. S10
Rep. Zawistowski, T. 061
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The bill was dead. We spoke to Rep. Willis and she confirmed that she would not
try to bring the concept up again this session. The Department of Higher Education
is going to move forward with the efforts that it had already been undertaking to
establish regional interstate compacts to help deal with this. It is certain that this
bill will come up again and particularly if the Department of Higher education
doesn’t arrive at a workable system between now and the beginning of next
session.
HB 6919: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE CONCERNING
OUTCOMES-BASED FINANCING. Passed. S. A. 15-20. Awaiting the
Governor’s signature.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Reps. Rosa C. Rebimbas (R-Naugatuck),
Rep. Terry B. Adams (D-Stamford), Sens. Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge) and
Edwin A. Gomes (D-Bridgeport). It was a priority of the Co-Chairs, Sen.
91
Bartolomeo (D-Meriden) and Rep. Willis (D-Salisbury). The introduction of the
bill came after a long informational presentation by consultants to the Planning
Commission for Higher Education.
.
The original bill establishes a task force to develop a strategic outcomes-based plan
for financing higher education. The goals and benchmarks of the task force’s plan
are to align with those of the Planning Commission for Higher Education. The task
force must consider the interrelationship among state appropriations, tuition, and
financial aid in developing such plan. They are to include recommendations on
base funding, an investment fund for public colleges and universities and
performance based funding models.
The task force shall consist of the following members:
(1) Two appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives;
(2) Two appointed by the president pro tempore of the Senate;
(3) One appointed by the majority leader of the House of Representatives;
(4) One appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;
(5) One appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;
(6) One appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;
(7) The president of the Board of Regents for Higher Education, or the president's
designee;
(8) The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, or the secretary's
designee;
(9) The president of The University of Connecticut, or the president's designee;
(10) A representative of the Connecticut State University System, who shall be
appointed by the Board of Regents for Higher Education;
(11) A representative of the regional community-technical college system, who
shall be appointed by the Board of Regents for Higher Education;
(12) The president of Charter Oak State College, or the president's designee;
92
(13) The president of the Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges, or the
president's designee;
(14) The chairperson of the Planning Commission for Higher Education, or the
chairperson's designee; and
(15) The chairpersons of the joint standing committees of the General Assembly
having cognizance of matters relating to higher education and appropriations, or
the chairpersons' designees.
The Speaker of the House and President Pro Temp of the Senate shall appoint the
chairpersons of the task force. Appointments must be made within 30 day from
passage, the first meeting must be held within 60 from passage and the Higher
Education Committee clerk will staff the task force. The task force shall submit at
report to the Higher Education Committee on their findings by January 1, 2016,
and will terminate after submission.
Testifying in support of the bill were Sally Reis, Vice-Provost, University of
Connecticut and Jennifer Herz, Assistant Counsel, Connecticut Business and
Industry Association.
Testifying in opposition to the bill were Vijay Nair, President, Connecticut State
University American Association of University Professors and Michael Bailey,
Executive Director, University of Connecticut- American Association of
University of Professors.
We lobbied the Co-Chairs and they agreed to include faculty on any task force
created to make recommendations and they agreed. We also provided them
materials outlining our concerns. It was clear from the meetings and discussions
that we had with legislators that this is an idea that will be around for awhile and
that we will need to address in future sessions and educate extensively around if
we wish to influence the outcome.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Committee by a
vote of 18-0. The substitute language outlines the task force appointments that are
to be made by legislative leadership, clarifies that members of the General
Assembly cannot serve on the task force and made technical changes. The Speaker
of the House has two appointments and both of them must be faculty members of
the Connecticut State University System.
93
Once the bill was taken up, House Amendment “A” was offered by Rep. Roberta
Willis (D-Torrington), and adopted by voice vote. House Amendment “A” adds
two additional members to the task force: the chief academic officer and
chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the University of Connecticut (or their
designees).
The bill, as amended, passed the House chamber 140-5. The legislators voting “no”
did so as an objection to the creation of a new task force and not in opposition to
the topic of the bill. They are the same legislators that vote against the creation of
every task force. The vote tally is as follows:
Y
ABERCROMBIE
Y
LEMAR
Y
ACKERT
Y
ADAMS
Y
LESSER
Y
ADINOLFI
Y
O'DEA
Y
ALBIS
Y
LOPES
Y
ALBERTS
Y
O'NEILL
Y
ALEXANDER
Y
LUXENBERG
Y
AMAN
Y
PAVALOCK
Y
ALTOBELLO
Y
MCCARTHY VAHEY
BELSITO
Y
PERILLO
Y
ARCE
Y
MCCRORY
Y
BERTHEL
Y
ARCONTI
Y
MCGEE
Y
BETTS
Y
REBIMBAS
Y
ARESIMOWICZ
Y
MEGNA
Y
BOCCHINO
Y
RUTIGLIANO
X BACKER, T.
Y
MILLER, P.
Y
BOLINSKY
Y
BAKER
Y
MORIN
Y
BUCK-TAYLOR
Y
SCOTT
Y
BARAM
Y
BUMGARDNER
Y
SHABAN
Y
BECKER, B.
Y
NICASTRO
Y
BYRON
Y
SIMANSKI
Y
BERGER
Y
PERONE
Y
CAMILLO
Y
SMITH
Y
BOUKUS
Y
PORTER
Y
CANDELORA, V.
Y
SREDZINSKI
Y
BRYCKI
Y
REED
Y
CARNEY
Y
SRINIVASAN
Y
BUTLER
Y
RILEY
Y
CARPINO
Y
STANESKI
Y
CANDELARIA, J.
Y
RITTER
Y
CARTER
Y
TWEEDIE
Y
CONROY
Y
ROJAS
Y
CASE
Y
VAIL
Y
COOK
Y
ROSARIO
Y
D'AMELIO
Y
WILMS
Y
CUEVAS
Y
ROSATI
Y
DAVIS
Y
WOOD
Y
CURREY
Y
ROSE
Y
DEVLIN
Y
YACCARINO
Y
D'AGOSTINO
Y
ROVERO
DUBITSKY
Y
ZAWISTOWSKI
X MUSHINSKY
N
N
94
X NOUJAIM
N
N
PISCOPO
SAMPSON
Y
DARGAN
Y
SANCHEZ
Y
FERRARO
Y
ZIOBRON
Y
DEMICCO
Y
SANTIAGO, E.
Y
FLOREN
Y
ZUPKUS
Y
SANTIAGO, H.
Y
SHARKEY (SPKR)
X DILLON
N
FRANCE
Y
ESPOSITO
Y
SCANLON
Y
FREY
Y
FLEISCHMANN
Y
SERRA
Y
GIEGLER
X FOX
Y
SIMMONS
Y
HARDING
X FRITZ
Y
STAFSTROM
Y
HOYDICK
Y
GENGA
Y
STALLWORTH
Y
KLARIDES
Y
GONZALEZ
Y
STEINBERG
Y
KOKORUDA
Y
GUERRERA
Y
TERCYAK
Y
KUPCHICK
Y
HADDAD
Y
TONG
Y
LABRIOLA
Y
HAMPTON
Y
URBAN
Y
LAVIELLE
Y
GENTILE (DEP)
Y
HENNESSY
Y
VARGAS
Y
LEGEYT
Y
GODFREY (DEP)
Y
HEWETT
Y
VERRENGIA
Y
MACLACHLAN
Y
MILLER, P.B. (DEP)
Y
JANOWSKI
Y
WALKER
Y
MCCARTY, K.
Y
MORRIS (DEP)
Y
JOHNSON
Y
WILLIS
Y
MCGORTY, B.
Y
ORANGE (DEP)
Y
JUTILA
Y
ZONI
Y
MINER
Y
RYAN (DEP)
Y
KINER
Y
MULLIGAN
Y
SAYERS (DEP)
When the bill arrived in the Senate, House Amendment “A” was adopted by voice
vote. The bill, as amended, unanimously passed a roll call vote, 36-0, in
concurrence with the House.
The bill is Special Act 15-20 and awaits the Governor’s signature.
HB 7007: AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. Passed.
Public Act 15-75. Signed by the Governor into law on 6/24/2015.
This bill was introduced by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee, and was co-sponsored by Reps. Terrie Wood (R-Darien), Roberta B.
Willis (D-Lakeville) and Sens. Martin M. Looney (D-New Haven), Beth Bye (DWest Hartford), Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport), Steve Cassano (D-Manchester),
Eric D. Coleman (D-Bloomfield), Joseph J. Crisco (D-Woodbridge) and Edwin A.
Gomes (D-Bridgeport).
95
This bill requires the state, the Board of Regents of Higher Education (BOR), and
the UConn Board of Trustees (BOT) to align their higher education policies with
the goals of the Planning Commission for Higher Education's (“Planning
Commission”, see BACKGROUND) strategic master plan for higher education.
These goals aim to:
1. increase the education levels of the state's adult population,
2. develop a globally competitive workforce and economy in the state, and
3. ensure higher education affordability.
It also requires the Higher Education Coordinating Council (HECC) (see
BACKGROUND) to use these goals when developing accountability measures for
public higher education institutions. HECC must use these measures to assess the
progress of each institution in meeting strategic master plan goals.
Under the bill, the Planning Commission must implement the strategic master plan
itself, rather than simply ensure its implementation as under current law. The bill
also requires the Planning Commission, in collaboration with the Office of Policy
and Management (OPM), to establish working groups and consult with existing
working groups, commissions, or task forces to investigate and offer specific
objectives identified by the Planning Commission or OPM. Such objectives
include outcomes-based funding (see BACKGROUND) and workforce
development.
The bill also makes numerous technical and conforming changes.
The bill’s effective date is July 1, 2015.
POLICY ALIGNMENT
The bill requires the state, BOR, and BOT to align their policies with the three
recommended goals of the Planning Commission's strategic master plan.
The first goal aims to increase the state's adult population education levels by
January 1, 2025, with a target of at least (1) 40% of adults having earned a
bachelor degree and (2) 30% of adults having earned an associate degree or subbaccalaureate certificate. Under the bill, a “sub-baccalaureate certificate” is a
postsecondary award that a student earns after completing a formal postsecondary
program below the baccalaureate level on a for-credit basis. The purpose of this
96
goal is to ensure that the state's workforce has the skills to achieve and sustain a
competitive economy through (1) reducing socioeconomic disparities and the
achievement gap between whites and minorities, (2) improving the lives of
residents in the state's most urbanized areas, and (3) ensuring the quality of
postsecondary education is improved.
The second goal seeks to develop a globally competitive workforce and economy
in Connecticut by cultivating an environment that attracts and retains a highly
educated, diverse population. The bill lists various means to accomplish this goal,
including:
1. aligning postsecondary degree attainment with Connecticut
employers' workforce needs;
2. contributing to the expansion and diversification of the state's economy through
research and innovation;
3. establishing partnerships among higher education institutions and business,
civic, and cultural leaders in the state; and
4. increasing the number of students engaged in community service, internships,
and other workplace-based learning experiences.
The third goal aims to ensure that higher education is affordable for Connecticut
residents by:
1. narrowing the gap between the cost of attendance at a higher education
institution and family income;
2. reducing the average student loan to the national average by January 1, 2025;
and
3. increasing by 5%, by January 1, 2025, the number of recent Connecticut high
school graduates who enroll in Connecticut higher education institutions.
BOR
The bill requires the BOR president to implement Planning Commission strategic
master plan goals. It also narrows the scope of many BOR duties prescribed by law
from a statewide to a BOR institution-specific scope. Current law requires BOR to
establish or prepare statewide higher education (1) general policies and guidelines,
97
(2) master plans, (3) tuition and fee policies, (4) budgets, (5) legislative proposals,
(6) central information system design and data requirements, (7) program reports
to the Office of Higher Education, and (8) studies or activities to benefit public
higher educational interests. The bill limits these duties to tasks affecting only
BOR institutions (i.e., the Connecticut State Universities, regional communitytechnical colleges, and Charter Oak State College).
The bill also eliminates BOR's obligations to:
1. notify an institution's board of trustees about proposed termination of an
academic program, along with the board's right to reject termination and BOR's
right to override rejection by a two-thirds vote;
2. review and make recommendations on plans received from BOR institution
boards of trustees for development and use of state public higher education
resources;
3. appoint advisory committees to help define and suggest solutions for higher
education's problems and needs;
4. establish a higher education advisory council to study methods to coordinate
institutional efforts; and
5. coordinate programs and services throughout public higher education and
between public and independent institutions.
Current law also requires state system of higher education policies to be consistent
with several goals. In addition to adding Planning Commission strategic master
plan goals to this list, the bill removes the following goals:
1. providing opportunities for education and training related to the state's
economic, cultural, and educational development;
2. assuring the fullest possible use of available resources in public and private
institutions of higher education;
3. maintaining standards of quality to ensure a position of national leadership for
state institutions of higher education;
4. applying the resources of higher education to society's problems; and
98
5. fostering flexibility in policies and institutions of higher education to enable the
system to respond to changes in the economy, society, technology, and student
interests.
UConn Board of Trustees
Under the bill, general UConn university policies and the university mission
statement must be consistent with Planning Commission strategic master plan
goals.
ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES
The bill preserves the requirement that BOR use HECC accountability measures,
but it instructs BOR to use them to assess its institutions' progress toward meeting
Planning Commission strategic master plan goals, rather than the following goals:
1. enhancing student learning and promoting academic excellence,
2. joining with elementary and secondary schools to improve teaching and learning
at all levels,
3. ensuring access to and affordability of higher education,
4. promoting Connecticut's economic development to help business and industry
sustain strong economic growth,
5. responding to the needs and problems of society, and
6. ensuring the efficient use of resources.
The bill eliminates HECC's duty to develop an implementation plan for using its
accountability measures.
The bill also requires HECC to consider Planning Commission strategic master
plan goals and any other factors it deems relevant when developing accountability
measures. It removes other factors required for consideration under current law:
1. graduation and student retention rates,
2. completions,
3. tuition and fees,
99
4. allocation of resources across expenditure functions,
5. program revenues and expenditures,
6. student financial need and available aid,
7. student transfer patterns,
8. enrollment trends,
9. strategic plans to ensure racial and ethnic diversity,
10. data on graduates, and
11. faculty productivity.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission for Higher Education
The commission develops and ensures the implementation of a strategic master
plan for higher education. The plan must address degree attainment, the number of
people entering the workforce, and the achievement gap. The plan must provide
specific strategies for meeting these goals and consider the impact of education
trends on higher education in Connecticut (CGS § 10a-11b). The Planning
Commission contains appointments for faculty members of CSUS.
Higher Education Coordinating Council
This council meets annually and consists of the two BOR vice-presidents, the OPM
Secretary, the education commissioner, the UConn president, the UConn chief
academic officer, the BOT chairperson, the BOR chairperson, and the BOR
president.
By law, the council must (1) identify, examine, and implement savings in
administrative functions carried out by the higher education system, including, but
not limited to, methods to simplify and reduce duplication in the administrative
functions of each constituent unit, and (2) develop accountability measures for
each constituent unit and each public higher education institution (CGS § 10a-6a).
Outcomes-Based Funding
100
Outcomes-based funding (i.e., performance-based funding) is a state higher
education funding model that purports to align with state goals and priorities. It
allocates state funds to institutions based on performance indicators such as course
completion, time to degree, transfer rates, the number of degrees awarded, and the
number of low-income and minority graduates. This bill requires that the Planning
Commission work with the Task Force on Outcomes Based Funding to produce a
report to the legislature to implement outcomes based funding at all public
institutions of higher education by January 1, 2016.
Testifying in support of the bill were: Sally Reis, Vice-Provost for Academic
Affairs, University of Connecticut; The Planning Commission for Higher
Education submitted the "Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education in
Connecticut.”; Judith B. Greiman, President, Connecticut Conference of
Independent Colleges and Ren Brockmeyer, Policy Analyst, Connecticut
Association for Human Services.
No testimony was submitted in opposition to the bill.
A substitute version of the bill was favorably reported out of the Higher Education
Committee to the House Floor by a vote of 18-0. The substitute language required
the University of Connecticut’s Board of Trustees to incorporate the goals of the
Planning Commission for Higher Education into their policies concerning
admission of students and establishment of schools, divisions and departments. It
also required the Board of Regents and each constituent unit of the state university
system to use accountability measures in assessing progress toward meeting the
aforementioned Planning Commission goals. Additionally, the Planning
Commission for Higher Education is to collaborate with the Office of Policy and
Management in establishing working groups to investigate and offer guidance on
specific objectives identified by the commission or office; including outcomesbased financing and workforce development.
Once the bill was taken up, House Amendment “A” was offered by Rep. Roberta
Wills (D-Torrington), and adopted by voice vote. House Amendment “A” made
several changes relating to institutions under the jurisdiction of BOR and UConn.
Specifically, it (1) required Higher Education Coordinating Council to submit the
accountability measures to the UConn Board of Trustees, in addition to Board of
Regents as required under current law; (2) requires Board of Regents and UConn
to submit separate reports to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee about Higher Education Coordinating Council accountability measures
and extends these reporting deadlines; (3) requires UConn to provide to its Board
101
of Trustees any data necessary for applying the accountability measures; and (4)
clarifies that Board of Regents must be provided data, reports, and other
information from institutions under its jurisdiction but not from UConn.
The amendment also eliminated several Board of Regents obligations in current
law and replaced them with ones related to implementation of Planning
Commission strategic master plan goals, restored several Planning Commission
strategic master plan goals which existing law requires state higher education
policies to align with, and restored the Planning Commission's responsibility to
ensure the implementation of a strategic master plan, as under existing law, rather
than requiring it to conduct the implementation.
The bill, as amended, passed the House chamber unanimously, 146-0.
When the bill was considered in the Senate, House Amendment “A” was adopted
by voice vote, and the bill, as amended, was placed on the consent calendar.
The bill became Public Act 15-75, and was signed by the Governor on 6/24/2015
and takes effect on 7/1/2015.
THE BUDGET AND FINANCE PACKAGE
The fight around the budget dominated the session. The budget negotiations had
the biggest impact because the budget and tax package were not finally adopted in
the Senate until right before the midnight adjournment which crowded out other
legislation from passing. The Governor’s budget which was introduced a week late
made serious cuts to the safety net and to Higher Education. His budget was
contained in HB 6824: AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE BUDGET FOR
THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE THIRTIETH 2017, AND MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED
TO REVENUE. Died. After the budget was submitted to the legislature, Office of
Policy and Management discovered a $55 million error in their budget which
created a hole in the budget the legislature had to address. The error may have
pushed the Governor’s budget over the spending cap as well.
His budget also included tax increases in SB 946:AN ACT CONCERNING THE
STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE THIRTIETH
102
2017, AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR AND OTHER
PROVISIONS RELATED TO REVENUE including:
 Extended some taxes that were suppose to expire such as the 20% corporate
surcharge, increased income exemptions for single filers and the reduction
earned income tax credit.
 Eliminated the clothing exemption in order to reduce the sales tax to 6.35%
to 5.95%.
 Eliminated the business entity tax of $250 per year
 Increased the business entity fee due to the Secretary of State by such
entities by $80.
 Changed the cap of how much corporations can use operating losses and tax
credits to reduce or limit their tax liability which would have raised $357
million.
 Changed the hospital provider tax to increase the general fund revenue by
$110 million- $55 million from the tax and $55 million from Medicaid.
 Swept funds from a number of different funds including 50% of the funds in
the Community Investment Action Fund in FY16 and 100% of those funds
in FY17.
But despite actually raising taxes in his proposed budget, he spent the session
warning the legislature not to raise taxes and restore his cuts to social services.
The Governor’s budget prompted a record number of people to show up to testify
at the Appropriations hearing. The Appropriations Chairs estimated they heard
from 4,000 individuals and received over 2,000 pieces of testimony about the cuts.
There were also, almost daily, lobby days and rallies around the cuts.
President Gray and Erika Steiner, Chief Financial Officer testified on behalf of the
Board of Regents for Higher Education. President Gray testified that he had little
time to review the Governor’s proposal and had yet to make any decisions about
tuition or personnel or program reductions. He said that all options would remain
on the table moving forward. Erika Steiner took over the discussion and said that
she would try and put the cuts into context for the Committee. She mentioned a
reduction of 33.5 staff members in the system office so far resulting in a reduction
of $7.5 million. She claimed that 176 new faculty had been hired. This is a figure
that has never been substantiated. She said the System faced a $38 million gap in
2016 if the Governor’s budget passed. She said that if passed the Governor’s
103
budget would be $47.3 million dollars less than required to fund current services.
The ”break even” funding for CSU alone would be $178,913.031; a significantly
higher figure than the Governor’s recommended $159,309.488. She said that the
good news was that the fringe benefit costs in the current budget were less than
what was budgeted. She said that raising tuition was “unacceptable” since the
priority goal of the Board of Regents was to maintain affordability. She further
stated that if the budget were to be balanced with a reduction in personnel it would
mean an overall 6% reduction in staff and that would also be unacceptable. She
also discussed the serious decline in system reserves. She outlined the new requests
for needed assistance that would also not be met by the Governor’s budget. These
items included the hiring of more than 54 additional academic advisors.
Testimony was submitted to the Committee from the AAUP CSU and two faculty
members testified about the effect of the cuts in the Governor’s budget on their
institutions. Professor William Lugo of Eastern Connecticut State University, a
Faculty Advisory Committee member, discussed the effects of the cuts on his
campus and system-wide particularly for students struggling to pay the tuition. Dr
Mary Ann Mahoney of Central Connecticut State University spoke of the value of
a CSU education and its impact on the State’s economy and culture. The members
of the Appropriations Committee were attentive to the professors’ testimony
although it was late into the evening.
The major topics of conversation throughout the session were how you restore the
cuts; not exceed the spending cap; and, where we could get new revenue. This
seemed to be an especially difficult task when you consider the small margin the
Democrats had in both houses. Long time veterans at the Capitol were concerned
we would be in for a long summer of budget negotiations.
Another topic of discussion around the budget at this time was the announced
closure of the Meriden campus of Middlesex Community College by President
Gray. President Gray was doing this as a response to the cuts in Governor’s budget
and in order to be able to accrue a savings as soon as possible. It was also believed
that this was done in order to get the attention of the legislature to the severity of
the proposed cuts. It was surely no accident that this closure occurred in the
legislative district of the Senate Co-Chair of the Higher Education Committee Sen.
Dante Bartolomeo. The closure would have affected relatively few students and
104
programs but the point had been made and the response was swift and angry. The
Appropriations Subcommittee for Higher Education felt threatened and was vocal
in its denouncement of President Gray and the Board of Regents. SB399, a bill
concerning transparency in financial aid distribution was sitting on the calendar
and ready to be used as a vehicle by Sen. Bartolomeo to respond. The Senate was
called into session the following week and SB 399 (see above) was called by Sen.
Bartolomeo and amended by Senate Amendments A and B. This last amendment,
co-sponsored by all Meriden area legislators and Senate leadership, directs the
Board of Regents not to close the Meriden Campus of Middlesex Community
College. It also puts into statute that the campus shall by law never be closed
without the approval of the legislature. The debate in the Senate continued and
Senator Witkos and other Republican Senators expressed the concern that if the
bill passed as amended the Board of Regents would just close another campus in
someone else’s district. The bill was then passed temporarily while another
amendment was drafted. A short while, later that day, Sen. Bartolomeo recalled the
bill and the amendment was called and passed as Senate Amendment C. This
amendment said that no campus or manufacturing program could be closed by the
Board of Regents without the prior approval of legislature. This bill was later
vetoed by the Governor and the Senate let it die by recommitting it on the next to
last day of the Session.
Voices of Children did a paper on the spending cap and recommended the
unfunded liability related to state employee pensions be excluded from the cap.
They laid out the arguments that these liabilities were evidence of indebtedness
which the constitution and the legislation passed before the passage of the
constitutional cap both specifically excluded from the cap. We connected Voices
with the Chairs of Appropriations and Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) so they
could present that proposal. In the end, unfunded liabilities related the state
employee retirement system and the Teachers’ Retirement System were excluded
from the cap, making space to add back some the funding for social services that
the Governor’s budget cut.
The next task was to figure out what the number was that would be used to
construct the budget and tax package. Neither document could be finalized until
they agreed on (a number) how much could be added back to the budget and
therefore how much revenue needed to be raised. With the committees’ deadlines
105
approaching, a number was agreed on. The Governor’s net appropriations for
FY16 was $19,669,322,266 and Appropriations net appropriations was
$19,905,467,004; and for FY 17 Governor net appropriations was $20,286,480,120
and Appropriations Committee was $20,565,058,537. The Appropriations
Committee added about $236 million to the Governor’s budget for FY 16; and
about $278 million in the second year of the biennium. So the tax package had to
reflect that amount.
The Appropriations Committee adopted a budget that restored most of the social
services cuts made by the Governor and put back into the Board of Regent’s
various accounts about $20 million and moved most of the fringe back to the
Comptroller’s Office budget. This really was the result of the determination and
hard work of the Chairs of that committee, Sen. Beth Bye (D-West Hartford) and
Rep. Toni Walker (D-New Haven). The Budget passed the Appropriations
Committee on a party line vote.
Finance Committee then adopted a tax package as an amendment to the
Governor’s revenue package-SB 946. Died It was adopted on a party line vote
except Rep. Altobello (D-Meriden) voted no. Rep Lonnie Reed (D-Branford) and
Rep. David Carter (R-Bethel) were absent. Rep. Dan Fox (D-Stamford), who has
been gravely ill and unable to attend any meetings since February, was also absent.
That package included:
 Increased the marginal rate on Taxpayers with income over $500,000 for
single filers and $1 million for joint filers to 6.99%.
 Established a supplemental tax, on all capitol gains, of 2% for tax filers with
adjusted gross income over certain thresholds
 Delayed: (these were also included in the Governor’s tax package) the
elimination of the 20% surcharge on the corporation tax; increased personal
exemption for single filers from $14,000 to $15,000; the restoration of the
earned income tax credit from to 30%; and, expiration of the caps on tax
credit utilization against the Insurance premium tax.
 Established a .5% share of the sales tax for municipalities
 Reduced the rate of the sales tax from 6.35 to 5.85 in FY 16 to 5.35 in FY 17
and expanded the scope to include 26 additional professional services
 Increased sales tax rate for computer and data processing services from 1%
to standard rates.
106
 Reduced the per item exemption for sales tax free week from $300 to $100
 Limits operating loss and tax credits to 50% of net income that can be used
to reduce the corporation tax and hospital tax. ( This was also in the
Governor’s tax package).
 Reduced business entity tax from $250 to $100
 Transfers funds from a range of other funds including a sweep of 50% the
funds in the Community Investment Fund for each fiscal year. The final
budget took an additional $90,000 in each fiscal year for the Governor’s
Foot Guard.
 Authorizes Keno
 Increased the fee for licenses and license renewals for all health care
professionals by $5
 Implemented mandatory combined reporting for corporations.
 Eliminates the sales tax on clothing under $50 ( also in the Governor’s
budget)
After the tax package and budget got out of committee, the negotiations with OPM
and the Governor around the budget began.
Around this time, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate offered a
proposed budget. The Republicans often have offered an alternative budget but this
one was especially detailed. They restored most of the Governor’s cuts to social
services and the arts but did so almost entirely by taking money and benefits from
state employees. They did not raise taxes but the cuts to state employees amounted
to about $400 million in phantom concessions and overtime. They spoke of the
need to cut retirement benefits and savings from privatization. None of these
proposed cuts to state employees are possible without reopening the state employee
budget agreement that was reached four years ago. It was clear that state
employees who had given up wage increases and benefits four years ago were not
willing to come back to negotiate any additional givebacks.
There was a lot of fighting about the budget; OPM and the Governor wanted the
Chairs of Appropriations to go back and make more cuts to the budget. It became a
struggle that went on for awhile. Until it was clear what the final budget number
was, they postponed discussions around the tax package. As they got close to a
final deal on the spending side of the budget and had begun work on the tax
package, the Governor brought all of the parties into his office for a discussion that
107
went from 1am to 3:30 am the Saturday before the Wednesday adjournment date.
At that meeting the Governor outlined his “lines in the sand”. Those “lines in the
sand” included wanting a portion of the sales tax for his transportation initiative
(up to $300 million). The legislature was counting on the sales tax for municipal
aid. He also would not accept their elimination of tax credits for the 26
professional services. He insisted on the funding for charter schools including the
funding for 2 new schools; even though a number of legislators had signed a letter
saying they would not vote for a budget with additional funding for charter
schools.
The negotiations continued through the weekend. There was talk they were close to
a final deal on the budget and tax package on the Monday before the Wednesday
adjournment. But as information about the tax package started to come out, a
number of legislators started to tell leadership they would not vote for the budget
(budget and tax package were to be voted on as one package.). On Tuesday, a few
major corporations, including GE, Travelers and Aetna, sent a letter saying they
had grave concerns about the budget and would even consider leaving the state if
the tax package was passed with combined reporting as part of it. Apparently later
some of the corporations changed which parts of the tax package was the most
objectionable. Their concerns included the cap of operating losses and tax credits
of 50% of gross income on their corporate tax and the increase from 1% to 3%
sales tax on computer and data processing services.
The Final Budget was an emergency certified bill, HB 7061: AN ACT
CONCERNING THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING
JUNE 30, 2017, AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR, AND
OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO REVENUE, DEFICIENCY
APPROPRIATIONS AND TAX FAIRNESS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT. Passed. The House announced they were going to vote on the
budget late afternoon on Tuesday but the rumor at that point was Democratic
leadership still needed to convince 12 more Democratic legislators to vote for the
budget. As it got later in the evening, the number of votes they still needed came
down to 5 votes. They finally put together enough votes (including having some
potential no votes go home and not vote) and called the budget at 5:21am
Wednesday in the House. The debate lasted for about 4 hours. The budget passed
on a vote of 73-70. All the Republicans voted no. The Democrats that voted no
108
included: Rep. David Alexander (D-Enfield); Rep. John Hampton (D-Simsbury);
Rep. Cristin McCarthy-Vahey (D-Fairfield); Rep. Tony Guerrera (D- Rocky Hill);
Rep. Lonnie Reed (D-Branford); Rep. Chris Perone (D-Norwalk); Rep. Emmett
Riley (D- Norwich); Rep. Daniel Rovero (D- Dayville); Rep. Joe Verrengia (DWest Hartford); Rep. Sean Scalan (D-Guilford); Rep. Steinberg (D-Westport); and,
Rep. Altobello (D- Meriden)
Democrats that were absent include: Rep. Lou Esposito (D-West Haven); Rep Dan
Fox (D-Stamford –he has been gravely ill and unable to attend meetings or
sessions since February); and, Rep. Mary Fritz (D-Yalesville). The Republicans
that were absent include: Rep. Cecilia Buck-Taylor (R-New Milford); Rep. Fred
Camillo (R-Old Greenwich); Rep. Libby Floren (R-Greenwich); and, Rep. Selim
Noujaim (R-Waterbury) who recently suffered a stroke.
The Senate took up the budget on Wednesday at 5:30pm. The debate continued
into the night. The Republicans’ reason for the filibuster kept changing. Originally
there was a deal for a 4 hour debate but then the Republicans said they needed to
see the budget implementer bills before they voted on the budget. It became
increasingly clear that all the implementers would not be ready before midnight. At
about 9pm, the Democratic Senate leadership told the Republican leadership that if
the debate did not finish before midnight they would call the question and end the
filibuster and vote on the budget. Alittle after 11 pm, Senate President Martin
Looney stood up interrupting the Republicans’ debate and indicated he was going
to make a motion to call the question (This has not been done in the CT Legislature
since 1978). Minority Leader Sen. Fasano asked for the Senate to stand at ease and
that he told Sen. Looney, he wanted to speak but they would end the debate by
11:30. The debate ended and the Senate voted 19-17 to pass the budget and tax
package. All the Republicans voted no and all the Democrats voted yes except.
Sen. Joan Hartley (D-Waterbury) and Sen. Paul Doyle (D-Rocky Hill) voted no.
For the final budget information see chart.
The tax package that passed was extremely controversial. CT Business and
Industry Association (CBIA) and large corporations continue to work against it.
109
There has been a lot of bad press including OpEds and Editorials. The final tax
package:
 Included everything from the Finance Committee’s revenue package except
the sales tax on 26 additional professional services
 Reduced the income tax property tax credit from $300 to $200 in FY 17
 Increased the Luxury Sales Tax from 7% to 7.75%
 Established a municipal share and a transportation share of the sales tax of
.3% on 10/1/15; .4% on 7/1/16 and .5 % on 7/1/17
 Provides for sales tax on car washes, web sites and motor vehicle parking
services
 Lowers from 70% to 50% as the max. percentage to which tax credits may
be used against tax liability under the corporate tax.
 Required manufacturers and sellers of electronic nicotine delivery devices to
register with consumer protection
 Increased the number of alcohol retail permits
 Adjusted reimbursements for residential state troopers to 85%
 Created a 6% provider tax on ambulatory surgical centers
 Created $20 million lifetime cap on total unified gift and estate tax liability
 Increased tax on cigarettes .25 cents in FY 16 and .50 cents in FY 17

The General Assembly adjourned without adopting any budget implementers. So
the last action of both chambers was to adopt a resolution to call a special session.
The following is the resolution:
Resolved by this Assembly:That pursuant to Article III of the amendments to the
state constitution, and Rule 33 of the Joint Rules of this session, we the members of
this General Assembly judge it necessary that there be a special session of the
General Assembly, that said session be convened not earlier than 12:01 a.m. on June
4, 2015, and that the call of the session be solely for the purposes of considering and
enacting the following legislation:
(1) Bills needed to implement provisions of the state budget for the biennium
beginning July 1, 2015, concerning (A) general government and education, and (B)
public health and human services as provided in House Bill 7062 of the January
Session, 2015;
110
(2) Bills concerning (A) state bond authorizations and their underlying programs
and projects, and (B) school construction;
(3) A bill replicating the provisions of Substitute Senate Bill 1109 of the January
Session, 2015, "An Act Concerning Excessive Use of Force", as passed by the
Senate; and
(4) A bill conveying certain parcels of state land.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the clerks of the Senate and the House of
Representatives deliver a copy of this resolution to the Secretary of the State
forthwith.
2016 Budget Proposal Comparisons
Agency/Line
Governor
Proposed
Comm.
Approps
Legis.
Final
BOR Board of
Regents
BOR Veteran's
OASIS
BOR Transform
CSU
CSU Board of
Regents
666,038
566,038
566,038
50,000
40,000
10,894,737
20,906,103
19,406,103
-16,130,529
-2,230,529
-3,370,529
Final Budget
Added $40,000 not contemplated in
the Gov's Budget
$12,400,000 increase over the Gov's
proposal
2017 Budget Proposal Comparisons
Agency/Line
Governor
Proposed
Comm.
Approp.
Legis. Final
BOR Board of
Regents
BOR Veteran's
OASIS
BOR Transform
CSU
CSU Board of
Regents
666,038
566,038
566,038
-
50,000
40,000
10,894,737
19,102,291
22,102,291
-17,936,356
-3,730,529
-1,036,356
Final Budget
Added $40,000 not contemplated in
the Gov's Budget
$16.9 million increase over the Gov's
proposal
HB6845: AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER
EDUCATION. Died.
111
To implement the Governor's budget recommendations.
The bill was introduced by Rep. J. Brendan Sharkey (D-Hamden), Rep. Joe
Aresimowicz (D-Berlin), Sen. Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Sen. Bob Duff (DNorwalk) and it would have done several things:
Section 1 provides $150,000 in FY 2016, and $300,000 in FY 2017 from the
Governor’s Scholarship funds in the Office of Higher Education, to New Haven
Promise to provide merit-based student financial aid to un-documented individuals
pursuing a full-time or part-time undergraduate degree at a Connecticut public
institutions of higher education. Sections 2, 3 and 7 harmonize the assessment
method for private occupational schools paying into the student protection account.
Section 32 of the Governor’s revenue bill transfers $2.5 million from this account
to the General fund in FY 2016. There are sufficient funds in the account to pay
claims if a schools closes. Section 4 eliminates new need or merit based awards
through the Governor’s scholarship to students attending private institutions of
higher education. The Governor’s recommended budget eliminates $4.6 million in
FY 2016, and $7.6 million in FY 2017 for this purpose. Students attending private
institutions and already receiving awards in FY 2015, would continue to receive
awards, as long as they maintain eligibility. Sections 5, 6 and 7 repeal student
financial assistance payments to children of deceased or disabled veterans or those
missing in action. The Governor’s recommended budget eliminates $3,800 in FY
2016 and FY 2017 for this purpose. Section 7 also repeals the Kirklyn M. Kerr
program at the University of Connecticut, which provides grants to students
pursuing veterinary medicine at out of state institutions. The Governor’s
recommended budget eliminates $400,000 in FY 2016 and FY 2017 for this
purpose. Additionally, this section repeals the English language learner educator
loan reimbursement program within the Office of Higher Education. The
Governor’s recommended budget eliminates $95,000 in FY 2016 and FY 2017 for
this purpose.
The bill was referred to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee. Testimony was offered by Yail Terón, Executive Director, Center for
Latino Promise; Werner Oyanadel, Executive Director, LPRAC; Stephanie
Marquez, CT Students for a DREAM; Meghan Vessel; Mark OvermyerVelázquez, Associate Professor of History and Director of the Institute of Latino,
112
Caribbean, and Latin American Studies, University of Connecticut; Sen. Martin
Looney; Luis Recorder Núñez; Kenneth Reveiz; Joseph Patrick Veloso; Jesus
Cortes-Sanchez; Jessica Manfredini; Christian L; Alison Martinez-Carrasco; Adan
Martinez, Legal Intern, Worker and Immigrants Rights Advocacy Clinic, Yale Law
School; Dominic Yoia, Associate VP, University Director of Financial Aid,
Quinnipiac University; and Ben Barnes, Secretary, Office of Policy and
Management,
Testimony in opposition came from Sean Martin, Director of Financial Aid,
Connecticut College; the MetroHartford Alliance; Jennifer Herz, Assistant
Counsel, CBIA; Karen Flynn, Director of Financial Aid, University of New
Haven; Julie Savino, Executive Director of University Financial Assistance, Sacred
Heart Univeristy; Judith Greiman, CT Conference of Independent Colleges;
Testimony with concerns or comments came from Jane A. Ciarleglio, Executive
Director, Office of Higher Education.
The Higher Education Committee voted unanimously to refer the bill to the
Appropriations Committee where it died with no action.
113