- Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:08 pm
#8541
Extract from Gov. Rell’s Veto message
December 28, 2009
The Honorable Susan Bysiewicz
Secretary of the State
20 Trinity Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Dear Secretary Bysiewicz:
I am returning to you without my signature Senate Bill 2101, An Act Concerning a Deficit Mitigation Plan for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2010.
As you know, when I called the General Assembly into special session to address the State’s budget deficit, I presented a comprehensive deficit mitigation plan. I proposed spending reductions, fund sweeps and other measures which would fully address the projected $337.1million deficit.
In addition, many of the so-called “savings” to be achieved in the bill are simply unworkable. For example, the bill merges the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners into the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). DAS, however, does not have staff on board that provide services that are similar to what the board will require. DAS, for instance, currently has no law enforcement authority, it does not issue any permits or licenses and does not conduct administrative hearings. In order for DAS to properly support the work of the board, therefore, DAS will need to hire additional staff for which no funding is provided. The projected savings associated with this provision are clearly overstated.
Finally, Senate Bill 2101 appears to require the elimination of one of the two Governor’s Foot Guard and Horse Guard companies, although this elimination is not referenced in the bill itself, but rather the OLR analysis. These units are among the oldest militia in the country, having been founded in 1771 and 1788, respectively. In fact, the First Company Governor’s Foot Guard is the oldest military organization in continuous existence in the United States. If it is the intent of the General Assembly to eliminate any of these historic military organizations, they should specify such and identify which company is to be eliminated.
For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to Section 15 of Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and Article III of the Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Senate Bill 2101 without my signature.
Very truly yours,
M. Jodi Rell
Governor
The elimination of the only full time staff in this bill (i.e. one person) cannot help but slow down the Board’s appeal process if NOT cripple it. The entire makeup of the Board has never been compensated (and no one seeks to be compensated) but all of the administrative paperwork, mailing's, phone calling/answering, hearing recording, transcribing, website posting, etc are all done by that one person being eliminated. The Board has traditionally also had a 'part time' person but that person - and the man hours of work performed, were eliminated when the current budget was adopted. That 1/2 person's man hours allowed the Board to always have an open office. With that position eliminated, the remaining one full time staffer could not possibly keep the office open all the time - sick time, hearings, vacation, etc, resulted in no one always present to process the paperwork of the appeals. The Board, by regulation, has a Chairman, a Secretary and members of the Board, are all volunteers and have already assumed responsibility for performing some portions of the 'required paper work - but THAT 'volunteerism' has its limits. The last session of the Legislature, passing the current biennial budget, dealt with the Governor's proposal to put the Board into the Department of Public Safety, but being that Department's actions that are being appealed to the Board, the Legislature changed the proposal, at first, to merge it into the "Commission on Human Rights and Opportunity (CHRO)" but that fell apart at the last minute and they voted to FORM A TASK FORCE (made up of several different people from different outlooks) to study 'where to put it'!
With this manpower cut and transfer of responsibility to DAS the effect would have virtually eliminated the Board or at a minimum made it totally ineffective (See the article at the end for DAS comments). We applaud the Governor for recognizing this problem and taking appropriate action.
SB 2101 AN ACT CONCERNING A DEFICIT MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2010. 12/21/09. PASSED.
§§ 12 & 13 — BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS
The bill transfers the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners from the Department of Public Safety for administrative purposes only to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). It also transfers $ 8,971 of the board's FY 10 appropriation for other expenses to DAS for the board's administration. 12/21/09
Sections 12 - 13 transfer the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). Funding of $8,971 in Other Expenses is transferred to DAS to support the Board. Section 1 includes a reduction in appropriations of $38,710 in the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to reflect the elimination of one non-union position due to the transfer.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus ... BMIT1.y=10
Prior Legislation: See link below for HB 7007 , AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE BUDGET CONCERNING GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND MAKING CHANGES TO VARIOUS PROGRAMS and see SEC. 155. Study TASK FORCE ON DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS -CHRO Task Force http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/H/2009HB ... R00-HB.htm The original proposal was to place it under the CT State Police – “Foxes watching the henhouse.” 10/02/09
Legislature this week may have caused more problems for the state’s firearms permitting process
December 23, 2009 at 11:48 pm by Brian Lockhart
On Monday, during the latest special session at the capitol to deal with the budget crisis, some staffers were grumbling about a proposal in the deficit mitigation bill that transfers the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Administrative Services and eliminates the one BFPE staffer.
And right there I just lost some of you. You’re wondering what the heck the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners does, what a Department of Administrative Services does, and who cares if one goes into the other?
The firearms board is the group residents turn to when their gun license has been denied or revoked. And it has come under fire – no pun intended – in recent years for being too darn slow in scheduling hearings (18 to 24 months in some cases). Lawsuits have been filed challenging the fairness of keeping folks with a permit appeal hanging for so long.
The complaint I heard in the capitol’s halls Monday, before the Democratic-majority General Assembly voted in favor of the deficit mitigation bill, was that moving that process to DAS is just going to make things worse.
So I reached out today to DAS and they are not particularly thrilled about this development. Here’s what Donna Micklus, a DAS spokesman, told me in an e-mail:
“Moving the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners under DAS was completely unanticipated by our agency since we weren’t party to any of the discussions, and we haven’t as yet had the chance to fully assess the impact.”
“However, since the move was ostensibly done to save the state $38,710, we have concerns whether any savings will be achieved. There is actually only $28,500 in BFPE’s account and most of that will have to go to pay the laid off employee’s salary for 4 to 6 weeks as required by law, paying her for vacation time if she leaves state service and to physically move the BFPE operations to DAS.”
“It is also our understanding that BFPE has a large backload of cases they are scheduled to hear and are involved in litigation for failure to provide Due Process to gun owners. This heightens our concern that the duties of BFPE staff are being assigned to an agency that has no knowledge or experience in the work they do. This is a heavy administrative burden; the duties performed by BFPE staff have no relevance to DAS core functions.”
I put in a call to Robert Cook, director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. Cook said he was trying to understand exactly what the legislature did on Monday, but said on the face of it “this just causes more administrative chaos.”
“The (BFPE) employee is the only one there to process these appeals,” Cook said. “Loss of the employee is just going to make it go from 18 to 24 months to 24 to 36 months.”
House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, whose caucus raised several concerns about the Democrats’ deficit mitigation bill, said he had not been aware of the concerns with the changes to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.
This is what happens, Cafero said, when the majority party is not serious about addressing the budget crisis and instead comes up with piecemeal solutions.
“You’re forced to do these cuts. So what happens? Friday you have this Board of Firearms Examiners and Monday it’s gone and Joe in the Department of Administrative Services is told ‘Hey Joe, make room, you’re the new firearms guy’ and he doesn’t know what the heck he’s doing. This is the way we’re running government, with no forethought or studying whatsoever,” Cafero said. “Then they make these cuts and people complain. It’s just the worst. And you’re going to see more of these things.”
http://blog.ctnews.com/politicalcapitol ... g-process/
December 28, 2009
The Honorable Susan Bysiewicz
Secretary of the State
20 Trinity Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Dear Secretary Bysiewicz:
I am returning to you without my signature Senate Bill 2101, An Act Concerning a Deficit Mitigation Plan for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2010.
As you know, when I called the General Assembly into special session to address the State’s budget deficit, I presented a comprehensive deficit mitigation plan. I proposed spending reductions, fund sweeps and other measures which would fully address the projected $337.1million deficit.
In addition, many of the so-called “savings” to be achieved in the bill are simply unworkable. For example, the bill merges the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners into the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). DAS, however, does not have staff on board that provide services that are similar to what the board will require. DAS, for instance, currently has no law enforcement authority, it does not issue any permits or licenses and does not conduct administrative hearings. In order for DAS to properly support the work of the board, therefore, DAS will need to hire additional staff for which no funding is provided. The projected savings associated with this provision are clearly overstated.
Finally, Senate Bill 2101 appears to require the elimination of one of the two Governor’s Foot Guard and Horse Guard companies, although this elimination is not referenced in the bill itself, but rather the OLR analysis. These units are among the oldest militia in the country, having been founded in 1771 and 1788, respectively. In fact, the First Company Governor’s Foot Guard is the oldest military organization in continuous existence in the United States. If it is the intent of the General Assembly to eliminate any of these historic military organizations, they should specify such and identify which company is to be eliminated.
For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to Section 15 of Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and Article III of the Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Senate Bill 2101 without my signature.
Very truly yours,
M. Jodi Rell
Governor
The elimination of the only full time staff in this bill (i.e. one person) cannot help but slow down the Board’s appeal process if NOT cripple it. The entire makeup of the Board has never been compensated (and no one seeks to be compensated) but all of the administrative paperwork, mailing's, phone calling/answering, hearing recording, transcribing, website posting, etc are all done by that one person being eliminated. The Board has traditionally also had a 'part time' person but that person - and the man hours of work performed, were eliminated when the current budget was adopted. That 1/2 person's man hours allowed the Board to always have an open office. With that position eliminated, the remaining one full time staffer could not possibly keep the office open all the time - sick time, hearings, vacation, etc, resulted in no one always present to process the paperwork of the appeals. The Board, by regulation, has a Chairman, a Secretary and members of the Board, are all volunteers and have already assumed responsibility for performing some portions of the 'required paper work - but THAT 'volunteerism' has its limits. The last session of the Legislature, passing the current biennial budget, dealt with the Governor's proposal to put the Board into the Department of Public Safety, but being that Department's actions that are being appealed to the Board, the Legislature changed the proposal, at first, to merge it into the "Commission on Human Rights and Opportunity (CHRO)" but that fell apart at the last minute and they voted to FORM A TASK FORCE (made up of several different people from different outlooks) to study 'where to put it'!
With this manpower cut and transfer of responsibility to DAS the effect would have virtually eliminated the Board or at a minimum made it totally ineffective (See the article at the end for DAS comments). We applaud the Governor for recognizing this problem and taking appropriate action.
SB 2101 AN ACT CONCERNING A DEFICIT MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2010. 12/21/09. PASSED.
§§ 12 & 13 — BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS
The bill transfers the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners from the Department of Public Safety for administrative purposes only to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). It also transfers $ 8,971 of the board's FY 10 appropriation for other expenses to DAS for the board's administration. 12/21/09
Sections 12 - 13 transfer the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). Funding of $8,971 in Other Expenses is transferred to DAS to support the Board. Section 1 includes a reduction in appropriations of $38,710 in the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to reflect the elimination of one non-union position due to the transfer.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus ... BMIT1.y=10
Prior Legislation: See link below for HB 7007 , AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE BUDGET CONCERNING GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND MAKING CHANGES TO VARIOUS PROGRAMS and see SEC. 155. Study TASK FORCE ON DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS -CHRO Task Force http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/H/2009HB ... R00-HB.htm The original proposal was to place it under the CT State Police – “Foxes watching the henhouse.” 10/02/09
Legislature this week may have caused more problems for the state’s firearms permitting process
December 23, 2009 at 11:48 pm by Brian Lockhart
On Monday, during the latest special session at the capitol to deal with the budget crisis, some staffers were grumbling about a proposal in the deficit mitigation bill that transfers the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Administrative Services and eliminates the one BFPE staffer.
And right there I just lost some of you. You’re wondering what the heck the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners does, what a Department of Administrative Services does, and who cares if one goes into the other?
The firearms board is the group residents turn to when their gun license has been denied or revoked. And it has come under fire – no pun intended – in recent years for being too darn slow in scheduling hearings (18 to 24 months in some cases). Lawsuits have been filed challenging the fairness of keeping folks with a permit appeal hanging for so long.
The complaint I heard in the capitol’s halls Monday, before the Democratic-majority General Assembly voted in favor of the deficit mitigation bill, was that moving that process to DAS is just going to make things worse.
So I reached out today to DAS and they are not particularly thrilled about this development. Here’s what Donna Micklus, a DAS spokesman, told me in an e-mail:
“Moving the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners under DAS was completely unanticipated by our agency since we weren’t party to any of the discussions, and we haven’t as yet had the chance to fully assess the impact.”
“However, since the move was ostensibly done to save the state $38,710, we have concerns whether any savings will be achieved. There is actually only $28,500 in BFPE’s account and most of that will have to go to pay the laid off employee’s salary for 4 to 6 weeks as required by law, paying her for vacation time if she leaves state service and to physically move the BFPE operations to DAS.”
“It is also our understanding that BFPE has a large backload of cases they are scheduled to hear and are involved in litigation for failure to provide Due Process to gun owners. This heightens our concern that the duties of BFPE staff are being assigned to an agency that has no knowledge or experience in the work they do. This is a heavy administrative burden; the duties performed by BFPE staff have no relevance to DAS core functions.”
I put in a call to Robert Cook, director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. Cook said he was trying to understand exactly what the legislature did on Monday, but said on the face of it “this just causes more administrative chaos.”
“The (BFPE) employee is the only one there to process these appeals,” Cook said. “Loss of the employee is just going to make it go from 18 to 24 months to 24 to 36 months.”
House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, whose caucus raised several concerns about the Democrats’ deficit mitigation bill, said he had not been aware of the concerns with the changes to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.
This is what happens, Cafero said, when the majority party is not serious about addressing the budget crisis and instead comes up with piecemeal solutions.
“You’re forced to do these cuts. So what happens? Friday you have this Board of Firearms Examiners and Monday it’s gone and Joe in the Department of Administrative Services is told ‘Hey Joe, make room, you’re the new firearms guy’ and he doesn’t know what the heck he’s doing. This is the way we’re running government, with no forethought or studying whatsoever,” Cafero said. “Then they make these cuts and people complain. It’s just the worst. And you’re going to see more of these things.”
http://blog.ctnews.com/politicalcapitol ... g-process/
- By SR9