Scully Communications

The Rell administration is well into the process of putting together another “deficit mitigation plan” or a series of new cuts in state spending. This is necessary, says the governor, because just a month and a half removed from enacting a new, two-year state budget, it is already $389 million in shortfall.

So where will the ax fall this time? The answer is, no one knows because the plan is being put together behind closed doors. No updates from the administration, no input from the outside and certainly no say from the people who will actually be affected by what the governor and her staff decide to leave on the cutting-room floor—the people of the state themselves.

Hopefully the administration will resist the urge to again whack state commissions and agencies that already took a pounding in the newly passed budget. These agencies serve a valuable purpose to the people of the state and now are struggling to continue to do so after seeing cuts to their budgets of 50%. It’s time to look elsewhere and focus the ax on other areas of state spending that may take some time and effort to find.

Here’s radical idea: How about holding a public hearing in the legislative office building and take some input from the people on what services should be maintained or agencies saved in any deficit mitigation plan? At the very least, it would give the people a feeling of being involved and they very well may have some useful ideas as to what can be cut and what should be preserved.

The Rell administration would also do well to make a presentation at such a hearing as to what cuts they are considering. That way, legislators who have to vote on any plan will at least have an idea as to what to expect.

It was bad enough when the governor and legislative leaders imposed a news blackout during the ridiculous (and historic) budget stalemate that lasted all summer. No one had any idea what was going on. Lack of transparency only raises suspicion on the part of the public and should be avoided whenever possible. However recent disclosures in other areas show Gov. Rell and her staff to be no fans of transparency. Too bad for the public.
*

The last two weeks or so have been very tough for Gov. Rell and her staff. Ethical questions involving the use of UConn professor and pollster Ken Daurich for the governor’s political ends won’t go away. And now e-mail correspondence between Dautrich and Rell’s Chief of Staff Lisa Moody contradict the governor’s explanations for the whole mess. She appears to be not telling the truth. Worse, when the Capitol press corps is able to track down the governor (usually at some feel-good, ceremonial event), she becomes testy and defensive with them as if it’s their fault for doing their jobs and asking questions.

Reporters will not get what was an anticipated chance to question the governor about these and other issues today. The monthly State Bond Commission meeting is today at 10:30 am. The Bond Commission votes to fund certain projects around the state by selling bonds (borrowing money). The governor alone decides what is on the commission agenda.

It is a long-standing tradition—one that predates Rell’s time in office—that the governor holds a news conference after the Bond Commission meeting breaks up. Set up outside the first-floor hearing room in the atrium of the legislative office building (LOB) is usually a podium, microphone, speakers and folding chairs for the media. There is no limit on the topics the press can ask about. It is seen by reporters as a chance to ask any question on any issue of the day.

However today’s press conference is canceled. The governor is attending the funeral of former Republican State Chairman Fred Biebel in Stratford at the same time the meeting is scheduled in Hartford. The bond commission meeting is still on, only the traditional fielding of questions from the press is no longer happening. Lt. Governor Michael Fedele will preside over the meeting. He won’t preside over the press conference. No one can blame the governor for showing due respect to the late Mr. Biebel. But the timing is bad. The governor and her staff have been caught, at the very least, not coming clean about the recent controversies (or as the chair of the state Democratic Party put it, “lying” to the people of the state). She should reschedule the press conference for later today or Monday. At the very least, Fedele should field some questions. After all, he fashions himself as Rell’s partner in government. A close cousin to the old saying, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up,” is certainly, “It’s not the controversy, it’s how one handles it.” The Rell administration is handling it badly.
*

The bond commission meeting itself is not without controversy. On the agenda is $15 million for a new juvenile detention center for girls in Bridgeport. State Rep. Christopher Caruso (D-Bridgeport) told The Hanging Shad this week he had been kept in the dark by two state agencies about how Bridgeport was chosen for the new facility. Caruso said the bond panel should reject it until questions are answered.

Also, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a bond commision member himself, wrote a letter to Rell administration budget chief Robert Genuario asking for further review of state public works officials’ conclusion that the new project doesn’t need an environmental impact statement.  Blumenthal said that while it doesn’t appear to be legally required, it would be a good idea to hold some community forums and open up the process. He added it should have been done before the governor’s big announcement about the facility last week.
*

A guilty pleasure for those who work late, have trouble sleeping or who are just plain night owls is a radio talk show called “AM Coast to Coast.” It can be heard locally on WTIC-AM at 1 am. Its topics include things like whether there are aliens among us (the E.T. kind, not the kind who cross the border), telepathy, Roswell, Bigfoot, various conspiracy theories and something called “remote viewing.” Its callers range from seemingly normal people with normal questions, to folks who are clearly suffering from sleep deprivation to shut-ins who are completely delusional and insist they just had a nice, sit-down dinner with the Mothman.

One recent topic was whether NASA actually landed a man on the moon or whether the whole thing was faked on a Hollywood sound stage. (Fortunately, the guest was of the opinion it was real although it’s hard to tell when one is inches from REM sleep).

It brought to mind an incident from several years ago when Buzz Aldrin, one of the first astronauts to walk on the moon, was confronted by one of these moon landing skeptics . The man angrily called Aldrin a “coward” and a “liar.” Aldrin told the man to get away from him, and when he refused, Aldrin promptly punched him in the face. The HS never endorses violence but this guy had it coming. The conspiracy theorist tried to sue Aldrin but the judge threw out the case.

It’s not hard to understand that it’s not a good idea to get up in the grill of the 79-year Aldrin after watching the incredible documentary, “In the Shadow of the Moon.” Aldrin still displays the intensity of a man driven toward his goals, one who gives the benefit of the doubt until he’s pushed too far.

The entertaining documentary itself uses no narrator, just about a dozen of the men who landed on the moon, in their own words. Also included are images and remastered film from that time period some of which haven’t been seen in 30 years. Astronauts Mike Collins and Aldrin are featured however the third member of the first moon-landing team, the notoriously private Neil Armstrong is not. It’s amazing to hear them talk about their experiences and how they seemingly knew they were in the midst of making history as they were doing it. A great movie to watch for the weekend.

As Gov. Rell refused to explain newly released e-mails that contradict her explicit contention that she didn’t know that a UConn profressor was helping her campaign committee with a poll earlier this year until she read it in the paper, the Democratic State Party Chairman said Rell was “lying [to Connecticut residents.]” It was just another development in a day that turned out to be a very bad one for pollsters in Connecticut.

The latest development in “Dautrich-gate” has the governor, like her press staff, going dark about e-mails that indicate the governor was fully aware that UConn professor Ken Dautrich was polling for the governor to help her politically in the state budget crisis. While Rell denies knowing about it, Her chief of staf, Lisa Moody wrote an e-mail to Dautrich responding, to a draft of a poll he sent her last April 7, saying, “Governor thought it it was great too—thanks.” The governor did scold members of the media yesterday, saying “…it’s a mistake to take individual e-mails…[and] try to piece them together….” Huh? Isn’t that exatly what good investigative journalists do? Does the govenor and her staff expect reporters to simply print what the adiminstratin spoon-feeds them?

Democratic State Party Chair Nancy DiNardo responded by asking rhetorically if Dautrich was “available to conduct a focus group or poll about how Connecticut residents feel about their Governor and her staff lying to their faces.” The State Auditors are investigating to see if public money was misspent. The State Elections Enforcement Commission is investigating whether campaign money was spent, and whether Rell’s office got a break on the price which could constitute an improper in-kind contribution to her campaign.
*
Qunnipiac University’s high-powered, Manhattan public relations firm was busy defending Q- polling director Douglas Schwartz’s decision to give advanced results of a July Q-Poll to the governor’s office. Rell was one of the subjects of the poll. E-mails show on this past July 27, Schwartz relayed information about the results of a poll to a retired Rell press secretary who then gave it to Rell’s Chief of Staff Lisa Moody; all done the day before the poll was released to the public. The spokesman for the Q-Poll’s p.r. firm said such actions were alright under Q-Poll policies. Several polling experts expressed surprise at Schwartz’s actions saying while there is no standard ethical code on releasing results to a subject of the poll early, it’s not generally good practice if the researchers want to keep their credibility.  Dr. Jeffrey Stonecash, a political science professor and noted polling expert at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship said what Schwartz did was “right up to the edge of being unethical.”

One doesn’t have to be Zogby, Harris, CBS/New York Times, NBC/Wall Street Journal, or ABC to figure out it’s patently unfair to give poll results to one of the subjects of the survey a day early. It’s gives that person (in this case the governor) adequate time to craft reponses to the survey’s findings—develop arguments, write talking points and generally prepare to spin the results. The VP said Schwartz “complied with our practices.” Schwartz, for his part, has a reputation for doing some pretty solid pro-Rell spin of his own when holding post-Q-Poll news conferences to analyze each poll’s results.
*
And as the HS reported yesterday, a new poll of Bridgeport Democrats purporting to show state Rep. Chris Caruso leading Mayor Bill Finch by 4% in a possible rematch in 2011 is flawed. It claims to have a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. However, a noted Syracuse University professor and polling expert says that’s “impossible” given the sample size of 350 people. “No. No way. It’s not possible. Something’s wrong,” responded Jeffrey Stonecash, Ph. D., a professor at Syracuse’s Maxwell School of Citizenship. If the margin of error is false, it calls into question the entire poll. Dr. Stonewall said it take would a survey of about 1,000 people to get a 3% margin of error.

All and in all, a pretty tough day for some of the folks who survey public opinion in Connecticut. Will the public lose some confidence in these polls? That remains to be seen.
*
The state General Assembly will not be meeting anytime soon to attempt to override Gov. Rell’s veto of a bill that among other things, would have funded a needs assessment and service contract for children of incarcerated parents. It also would have exempted the Judicial branch from having to make $7.8 million in cuts over the next two years.

There isn’t the required number of votes in the state senate (24) to make the override happen. House sources said they had the 101 votes they need A House Dem. spokesman is quoted as saying “We will continue discussing a possible override internally [and let you know].” One can read that, “The Senate doesn’t have the votes, we’re moving on.”

Both the governor and the lawmakers who don’t want to spend the $1.3 million on the program are being incredibly short-sighted on this one. As The Hanging Shad wrote Tuesday, “If one wants to look at the issue from a purely economic perspective—which one shouldn’t—but the Rell administration and certain lawmakers have, the bill would save money in the long run. Studies show that intervening in the lives of locked-up parents and their children benefits society with reduced recidivism, less chance of the children following the parent into jail and the promotion of healthy child development (National Conference of State Legislatures).”
A short-sighted veto of funding now may very well result in millions being spent down the road on the children having an increased chance of ending up with a screwed-up life—in prison, treatment or adding to crime.
Further troubling is the fact that according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study released in August of 2008, 2.3 % of the nation’s population of children under the age of 18 has a parent in jail. The number of kids with a father in prison increased an eye-popping 77% nationwide since 1991 according to the BJS study. One in every 15 black children across the U.S. has at least one parent in jail. One in every 41 Hispanic children has a parent locked up. These are national numbers and not Connecticut-specific but certainly indicate the depth of the problem in general.
Yes, ecomonic times are still tough and the state budget is in the red. However, we’re talking about the lives of children, who through no fault of their own, have at least one parent in prison. They are the big losers in all of this. Not exactly a “profile in courage” for some of our elected officials.

A new poll that purports to show Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz leading Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy in the race for the Democratic nomination for governor is flawed according to a national polling expert. The company that conducted the poll claims it surveyed 350 Bridgeport Democrats and has a margin error of plus or minus three percent. But the experts contacted by The Hanging Shad say unequivocally that’s impossible.

The survey, commissioned by Bridgeport political fixture and author Leonard Grimaldi’s “Only in Bridgeport” web magazine and conducted by Connecticut-based Merriman River Associates also claims to show state Rep. Christopher Caruso in a statistical dead heat in a potential rematch with Mayor Bill Finch. Finch isn’t up for election until 2011.

The Merriman survey www.merrimanriver.com shows Finch trailing Caruso by roughly three percentage points with former Mayor John Fabrizi running just four points behind Finch. Both those numbers fall within the poll’s margin of error of three percent, according to Matt Fitch who supervised the poll.

But Dr. Jeffrey Stonecash, a political science professor and noted polling expert from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship, says there’s no way that could be. The HS asked Dr. Stonecash today if a three percent margin of error is possible with a sample of 350 people. “No. No way. Impossible. Something’s definitely wrong there. It would take about a thousand people to get that margin of error.” Dr. Stonecash says such a flaw could raise questions about the poll in general.

The poll claims to have asked voters about Finch head-to-head matchups with Caruso, Fabrizi, former Mayor Joe Ganim, retired Judge Carmen Lopez, Probate Judge Paul Ganim and State Rep. Andres Ayala.
Caruso beats Finch 40.19-percent to 36.71-percent. Finch beats Fabrizi 40.19-percent to 35.76-percent. Measured against Joe Ganim, Finch secures 46.52 percent of the vote against 33.86 percent for that former mayor. Ganim is in jail on corruption charges. Fabrizi did not run in 2007 after admitting drug use while mayor. Finch does better against Lopez, Paul Ganim and Ayala.

The poll also asked about a Bysiewicz-Malloy match-up. Bysiewicz get 31.44-percent to Malloy’s 14.56 percent. Malloy lost a close gubernatorial primary to New Haven Mayor John DeStefano in 2006.

All of this, however, is questionable due to the problems with the margin of error. The survey’s credibility is now, at very least, in doubt.

New documents obtained by the The Day of New London yesterday show Gov. Rell’s administration used polling conducted by UConn professor Ken Dautrich far more extensively and far more recently than the governor has acknowledged casting further doubt on the truthfulness of the governor’s story in so-called Dautrich-gate. The newspaper reports a $6,000 poll was conducted this past April to weigh voters’ attitudes toward the governor’s proposed solutions to the state budget standoff. The governor has insisted she didn’t know Dautrich was involved in crafting the poll’s questions until she read it in the paper. The documents obtained by reporter Ted Mann show otherwise.

“Governor thought it [the poll] was great,” Rell Chief of Staff Lisa Moody wrote to Dautrich April 7^th. Other e-mails obtained by The Day show Dautirch asking whether his polling work “[would be] a UConn project or not.”

Other e-mail exchanges show Dautrich offered to conduct polls for Rell as recently as this past July as the state budget stalemate dragged on. At the the time, Rell’s budget office was paying Dautrich and some graduate students to study the streamlining of the state government.

The e-mails exchanges that The Day received just yesterday were among the correspondence Rell’s staff failed to provide under an original Freedom of Information request about Dautrich’s work. Rell spokesman Rich Harris has dummied-up about all of this except to say the e-mails were inadvertently held back because staffers failed to properly use the “find” function in the Microsoft Outlook e-mail program.

Mann’s full reports are here: www.theday.com

*

With the municipal elections across the state just a week away, one wonders who among those running for the top spots in Connecticut’s cities and towns will eventually be in the middle of things statewide. Safe bets are two popular first selectmen: Mary Glassman of Simsbury and Scott Slifka of West Hartford. In fact, the two Democrats have already run statewide—against each other.

In 2006, Glassman was gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy’s runningmate while Slifka filled the same role for John DeStefano. Malloy won the convention endorsement but DeStefano won the primary before being stomped by Gov. Rell in the general. In a bit of a strange twist though, Glassman won her primary, handily beating Slifka. She then paired with DeStefano in losing the general election.

Both chief elected officials have been successful in keeping down spending in their towns and more importantly, handling things locally while the state legislature engaged a summer-long game of budget chicken with the governor. The ridiculous and historic stalemate left local elected officials basically guessing as to their own budgets because they had no idea what they would be getting in state aid.

Both Glassman and Slifka survived the mess and indeed, showed exceptional leadership. In the six years previous to Glassman taking office, Simsbury’s budget increased an average of 5.5%. The last budget, with Glassman at the helm, saw a decrease of 3%.

West Hartford has a similar story. The operating budget dropped $645,000 and the capitol budget was reduced by $32 million with Slifka in charge.

One might think the two might be rivals having faced off in 2006 in the race for lieutenant governor. In fact, the opposite is true. The two have become strong allies with shared interest in issues such as regionalization—combining town efforts to reduce the duplication of services and thereby saving money.

The two were participants in a recent gathering of Connecticut municipal, business and education officials in Minnesota. The purpose of the meeting, sponsored by the Metro Hartford Alliance, was to share ideas on public policy issues with counterparts in St. Paul. Both Glassman and Slifka say the meeting were very useful.

Taxpayers should be pleased with such proactive efforts on the part of their local leaders because it’s becoming more and more of a concern that state leaders can’t get it done.

As for the talk of Glassman and Slifka eventually seeking higher office, both readily admit they’ve been asked about it often. But both they say they are squarely focused on next Tuesday’s municipal elections and if successful, will continue to work hard for the people of their towns.

*

While Connecticut has one of the more interesting US Senate races in the nation, the race to succeed legendary Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy is turning into some real, old school, hardball politics. Martha Coakley, the hard-as-nails attorney general, is considered the frontrunner. She was the only candidate to declare she was running without waiting around to see whether former US Rep. Joseph Kennedy—nephew of Ted and son of Bobby—would run. When Joe Kennedy opted out to continue his work as the head of a nonprofit that provides home heating oil to low-income families, others jumped in including former Somerville mayor and current US Rep. Michael Capuano, businessman (and Boston Celtics co-owner) Stephen Pagliuca and Alan Khazei, CEO and founder of the nonprofit “Be the Change.”

While Coakley and Capuano are considered the top-tier candidates, both are having their problems. Federal election authorities have undertaken an official review of Republican state party claims that Coakley improperly used her state campaign funds to launch her senate bid weeks before Kennedy’s death. She denies it.

Meanwhile, Capuano has given to charity $64,500 in contributions collected through a lobbying firm that is the subject of a federal pay-to-play investigation. However, Capuano’s campaign has not yet returned $47, 500 that employees of the firm and its associates gave to another political action committee created by Capuano in 2005. A Capuano spokesman says it was an oversight and that money will be given to charity as well.

Politics in Massachusetts is a contact sport to be sure.