Connecticut state trooper found unjustified in use of deadly force, inspector general decides not to prosecute
Connecticut
Opinion: If the guardrails are unconstitutional, then what?
This is the last of a six-part series on the constitutionality of the state’s “budget guardrails.” Here are Parts One, Two, Three, Four and Five.
If Connecticut’s budget guardrail statutes were determined to be unconstitutional, what are the implications for state budget policy? The following outcomes seem most likely and desirable:
1. The guardrails statute in Public Act 23-1 would revert to the status of ordinary legislation, amendable by majority votes and subject to gubernatorial veto.
2. The spending cap in the Connecticut Constitution, including the three-fifths vote “escape clause” and the three adopted definitions in state statute, would remain in force without alteration.
3. The three-fifths supermajority vote requirement in the guardrail statutes would be severable from the remainder of the statute.
4. Absent the severed supermajority vote provisions and the nullified bond covenant, the remainder of the fiscal statutes would continue to be implemented as currently done by the Office of Fiscal Analysis and the Office of Policy and Management, unless and until these statutes are amended.
5. The priority funding of the rainy day fund and prepayment of pension debt would continue under the status quo, unless and until amended by law.
6. The budget impacts of revising the guardrails will be determined by future actions of lawmakers. All the statutory caps in P.A. 23-1 could be amended by a majority vote except to the extent covered by the constitutional spending cap in article Third, Sec. 18c.
Alex Knopp7. The General Assembly and governor would be expected to carefully project how their fiscal decisions going forward will impact Wall Street’s credit rating agencies.
8. The bond lock should be recognized as “null and void” by legislative repeal or by exercising the “escape clause” to avoid unintended consequences.
9. The State Treasurer should seek immediate legislation relieving him of the obligation to insert the bond lock covenant in future bond sales.
10. Assuming that there is at least some consensus of good faith acknowledgement of constitutional flaws in the statutory guardrails, the threshold question of whether any changes should be made will have been definitively answered, allowing everyone to move on. In response, House Speaker Matt Ritter, Senate President Martin Looney and Gov. Ned Lamont might convene an “all parties” negotiation to address post-guardrail changes to the FY 26-27 state budget and to hammer out new flexible fiscal policies to replace the old inflexible statutory guardrails.
The prospects for a successful negotiation seem high despite current bickering because there is ample political and policy consensus that some level of fiscal controls should remain in place. The CT Voices report and the Yale Tobin/Connecticut Project report both propose sensible fiscal revisions, but neither group advocate for eliminating fiscal controls all together. Governor Lamont in particular should take credit for the fact that “guardrails” of some type have now become a permanent part of Connecticut’s fiscal infrastructure because of his insistence.
The General Assembly should now approve what it neglected to do in 2017 or in 2023: adopt a “best practices” approach by establishing a new permanent Fiscal Commission of budget experts, stakeholders, and representatives of municipal, business and nonprofit leaders, to monitor on a regular basis the productivity, responsiveness and efficiency of ongoing fiscal policies. The Commission’s reports should contain fiscal analysis on the authoritative level of the OFA’s Fiscal Accountability Reports and recommendations on the data-driven policy level of the recent guardrail reports from the Yale Tobin Center and CT Voices for Children.
Consequences for bond purchasers
What might be the legal consequences for bondholders and the state if the bond lock covenant is unconstitutional?
Experienced bond counsel would need to be consulted about extracting the state from these entanglements. The following assurances could minimize if not eliminate any serious risk to the state from a bondholder lawsuit.
First, bondholder investments are sufficiently protected under the conventional bond covenant from the State of Connecticut to pay principal and interest on the bonds, guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the state. The primary security pledge received by the bondholders has not been impaired.
Second, bondholders will still receive extra protection from the risks of the normal state budgeting cycle by the constitutional spending cap which exempts in article Third, Sec. 18b “expenditures for the payment of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness” from the cap.
Third, the exercise of a public entity’s sovereignty in limited circumstances has been upheld by courts as a defense or justification for post-sale changes to bond covenants. A well-known example excused a municipality’s non-performance with its pledge to dedicate casino revenues to pay bondholder debt service after the city’s approval of construction of a new casino was rejected by a voter referendum. A finding of unconstitutionality would leave the debt service obligation intact even if the bond lock were nullified.
Fourth and most importantly, the General Assembly was never constitutionally authorized under the “anti-delegation legislative rule” to issue the bond lock covenant in the first place. There is no “breach” for damages if the covenant was void from the start and there is no claim for “damage” if the debt service is paid.
Fifth, future assessments by Wall Street’s credit rating agencies will largely depend on the budget policies adopted in the post-guardrail period. No other state has adopted a bond lock covenant. Wall Street has welcomed Connecticut’s fiscal results but has not been clamoring for other states to replicate the bond lock.
Sixth, a final option for the state to extricate itself from the any bond covenant contract disputes without even the appearance of a technical default is for the General Assembly and the governor to exercise the bond covenant’s procedural “escape clause” for each of the remaining fiscal years on the 2024-2028 covenants and not to renew the covenants in 2029 for the optional second five years.
Conclusion and a note of judicial caution
In this series of opinion essays I have presented a “big picture” analysis of the unconstitutionality of the budget guardrails to stimulate the kind of legal research and discussion that regrettably has been avoided since 2017. As an obvious caveat, these essays were never intended to take the place of a legal brief.
Asking a Connecticut court to declare a state statute unconstitutional can be a daunting task. A 1986 court ruling stated: “It is well settled that a party who challenges a statute on constitutional grounds has no easy burden, for every intendment will be made in favor of constitutionality, and invalidity must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
That is why, in the end, it is my hope is that without formal judicial intervention the General Assembly and the governor will find either in these essays or in a legal opinion from the Attorney General or in an advisory opinion from the Legislative Commissioner’s Office enough of a persuasive legal rationale to conclude that the Connecticut Constitution requires a different process to adopt future state budgets, unencumbered by questionable statutory budget guardrails that may be out of date or out of order.
Seeking to have the guardrails recognized as unconstitutional is a weighty matter not to be undertaken frivolously. But continuing to adopt state budgets outside of the bedrock rules enshrined in the state constitution also carries serious risks and is likely to cause damage to trust in government and lead to more factional disunity.
Although the guardrails deserve their share of recognition for addressing the depleted rainy day fund and advancing payments of pension debt, let’s not forget that fiscal performance improved in every state between 2021 and 2023. During that period, 48 states cut taxes, and many built up their rainy day funds. Only Connecticut imposed a bond lock.
Connecticut does not need to choose between respecting its Constitution and enacting fiscally responsible budgets. It can and should do both. The statutes, guardrails and budgets reviewed in this opinion series are important elements of governing, but in the end the most precious commitment that all state elected officials make is the oath they take to “support” the Connecticut Constitution.
Connecticut
Motorcyclist seriously injured after crashing into parked, unoccupied vehicle in Meriden
MERIDEN, Conn. (WTNH) — A motorcyclist has serious injuries after a crash early Friday morning in Meriden, according to police.
The crash happened just after 3:00 a.m. in the area of Lincoln Street. The motorcyclist was navigating a turn when they struck a parked, unoccupied vehicle, police said.
The motorcyclist was taken to an area trauma center, according to police.
A section of Lincoln Street is blocked for the investigation, police said.
Meriden’s accident investigation team responded to the scene.
Additional information was not immediately available.
Download the News 8 app to get breaking news and weather alerts.
Watch News 8 on WTNH.com or the free WTNH News 8 streaming app on Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV and select Samsung Smart TVs.
Connecticut
Connecticut 250, 251, 252, 253 . . . – New Haven Independent
In order to get to the truth, it’s important to define your terms.
For example, what precisely do you mean by the word Connecticut? Or is it Quinnehtukqut, in the Algonquin language?
It’s also important how you frame your story.
That is, what do we miss if we only start Connecticut’s story in 1776? What about the long, century-and-a-half colonial/religious run-up beginning in 1638? What about the 10,000 years before that, of indigenous habitation along our state’s long and short rivers? And what of all Long Island Sound?
Depending on where you start, you might have a geography story, a political story, a theological struggle.
You also need to include not only 50 or 60 founding fathers, but a full range of voices — you must try to expand the historical house, and also tell a whole story, not a partial.
For example, even in a copiously told tale of the Elm City Signer-in-Chief Roger Sherman, if you stopped his story at the mere signing of the Declaration of Independence, he’d still be a guy in a homespun suit among many in the founders’ chorus.
Although John Hancock appointed Sherman to the committee — along with Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, to write the document we are all celebrating this year — it’s clear he wasn’t much of a writer, or editor, or speller. John Adams, when he recollected those days, couldn’t even remember Sherman in the room of the writing of the document that changed the world. Apparently only Franklin and Adams dared to edit the brilliant Jefferson’s prose.
However, continue the story to 1787, and Roger Sherman’s political and personal skills help lead the way to the bicameral compromise — a Congress with one legislative house based on population side by side with another house of equal number of senators from each state.
Without this deal — known as the Connecticut Compromise — there would have been two-and-a-half strikes against the possibility of ever passing a Constitution; and as a consequence, perhaps no United States. That makes Sherman a profound hero of the democratic story, and, of course, earns our sobriquet as the Constitution State.
All this fascinating, perspective-altering stuff was at the heart of a by-turns erudite and entertaining lecture — call it a sermon on history– entitled “Why Connecticut 250 Matters,” delivered by Connecticut State Historian Andy Horowitz.
Receiving it Wednesday night was a standing-room-only crowd of some 200 New Haven history glitterati gathered at the New Haven Museum.
Horowitz’s lecture was the companion piece to a gala evening marking the opening of the New Haven Museum’s new exhibition, “New Haven’s Unfinished Revolutions.”
With opening remarks by City Historian Michael Morand and exhibition director Joanna Steinberg and designers David Jon Walker and John Kudos, attendees also took in the spiffy photo and large, wall-text-festooned new space — the gallery to the left as you enter the museum’s first floor.
The exhibition is designed to include all those voices that Horowitz talked about — the centerpiece being a kind of grand kiosk or large table where you can put “tablets” of, so far, largely 18th century documents into a “cradle,” and then the docs come alive.
You hear, for example, a selection of the deposition by Sarah Townsend of the British invasion of New Haven in 1779. It’s a rare document in the NHM’s collection, but how many have had a chance to read it?
Enter the new exhibition, and the text appears on a screen in front of you — in both the original handwriting and an easy-to-read print version, as her voice speaks in the voice of local actors from New Haven who have done the recordings.
It’s immersive and the whole packed space — 900 square feet, which is not much bigger than a comfortable one-bedroom Elm City apartment — is trying to tell a Big Story, much of it under-told or never-told. It’s also designed for classes and groups and to be a kind of teaching house, said Steinberg.
The “table” is its centerpiece, a kind of hearth — designer John Kudos agreed to this reporter’s characterization — is where an individual, a family, or a group of school kids gather round to warm to the sounds and evocations of long ago and also to not-so-long-ago overlooked voices.
And the design is such that new documents can be added, indeed, are being added from the museum’s collection, along with contemporary documents/voices as they emerge in the living history of the city.
“The soul of New Haven is on display,” said Walker, one of the designers, via video hook up.
By that he meant, in part, under-told stories such as that of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company and those many African American immigrants from a racist South who labored on its factory floors and built new lives and institutions in the Elm City; the Model City era of the late 1960s; May Day of 1970, with the mutual aid groups such as the Hill Parents Association and the local Black Panthers who organized in the run-up; and New Haven’s important labor history as captured in the watershed 1975 teachers strike. The exhibition ends with material from the environmental movement of the 1980s.
In addition to Roger Sherman, the two other “souls” from New Haven’s 1776-era history whom Horowitz summoned and evoked to structure his tale were Hannah Mamanash, an indigenous woman of the Wangunk tribe (related to the Quinnipiacs and Mohegans); and Cuff Wells (also known as Cuffee Saunders), kidnapped as a child from Guiana, in South America, and enslaved in Colchester, Connecticut.
Known mostly through land deeds and an extensive petition for Revolutionary War pensions, Mamanash saw four of her sons enlist in George Washington’s forces. Three, perhaps all four, were killed in the Revolutionary War fighting.
“It’s hard to believe,” said Horowitz, “that anyone made a larger sacrifice to the American Revolution than Hannah Mamanash.”
But Horowitz deepend the story: Mamanash also had a daughter, who married a Samson Occam, a Mohegan who was Christianized, became a minister, and was the first Native American to publish a book. In another document, from 1775, a letter to the Oneida tribe, Mamanash’s son-in-law Occam tried to explain and advise which side that tribe should take in the fast-arriving rupture with Great Britain.
He basically took a neutral position, citing Jesus as a template for being peace-makers, not side-takers, although he did characterize the English as the oppressors and the patriots as the oppressed.
Yet Horowitz’s point is that there was no inherent, clear, obvious reason for Mamanash and her sons to make the choices they made, and the sacrifices they gave. Their history goes back much farther, sometimes siding with the English, sometimes the French, often with no one. You widen the story, and it gets deeper, more complex.
Wells’s enslaver was an apothecary and with that skill, which he learned, Wells enlisted in the Continental Army tending the sick and likely saving lives at the army hospital in Danbury, and later at Valley Forge.
And yet, Horowitz taught, it’s important to know that at the start of the Revolution neither Washington nor the creators of the Declaration wanted Blacks to enlist at all, whether they were apothecaries or not. Like the British they were afraid of what enslaved people might do if given firearms.
In fact, the phrase, among the list of colonists’ grievances in the Declaration itself, is the tell in this context: “Exciting domestic insurrections amongst us” primarily refers to British inducements to enslaved African Americans to flee their American masters and to fight for the king in exchange for offers of freedom.
And still Wells enlisted and deployed his skills, survived the war, received a pension, bought three acres of land in Lebanon, and sired a son, Prince, who went on to graduate from Dartmouth College.
If that isn’t a little-known American story that should be better known, I don’t know what is.
Horowitz was at pains to point out, also, that Wells is known, in the extensive 127-page pension file, the key source of his biography, also as Cuff Saunders.
“He changed his name,” Horowitz surmised, “because he did not want Wells, his enslaver’s name.”
“And such stories are not that unusual,” Horowitz added, “among Black soldiers, who gave themselves names like Caesar, Liberty, Beman. Every description is a form of argument.”
“So what to make of these stories?” Horowtiz drew towards his conclusion and, of course, the relation of the past to the present.
He said the kind of historical research, the poring over documents in archives, that yielded these stories is precisely the kind that is being threatened today, along with, of course, doing the opposite of expanding the historical frame, which is the policy direction of the current administration.
He didn’t mention the name of President Trump, but the narrowing of history, the bee in the bonnet of the current administration, was clearly the elephant in the room, to mix the zoological metaphors.
“When I began, there were three people in the office of state historian. Now I’m the only one. Seventy percent of professors teaching history are un-tenured. History departments are closing down. As a tenured historian I’m like a typewriter repairman, the last of my kind.”
And if there were a single theme to this wide-ranging yet also deep dive into Connecticut’s 1776, it was this: “A narrow sense of history yields a narrow sense of the future.”
Which is why Morand had concluded his remarks, in the new exhibition space of “New Haven’s Unfinished Revolutions,” singing from the same hymnal, with similar congratulatory, if minatory, praise:
“This is a major addition to understanding what New Haven has been and what it has become and to what they and we can do to affect the future. . . Our history is not about the past, it’s made active, it’s story upon story, not punctuated by a period, but an ellipsis. This show is really about America 251, 252, 253 . . . ”
 100vw, 1024px”/><figcaption class=)
 100vw, 1024px”/><figcaption class=)
Related
Connecticut
Local priest dies after crashing car into tree in West Hartford, police say
An 85-year-old priest has died after he crashed his car into a tree in West Hartford on Wednesday afternoon, police said.
Police received a report that a car went into the woods near Simsbury Road and Tumblebrook Lane around 2:41 p.m. The West Hartford Police Department responded, along with the West Hartford Fire Department and AMR medical personnel.
The driver, later identified as 85-year-old Terence Kristofak, of West Hartford, was the car’s only occupant. Firefighters extricated him from the car before he was taken to a hospital with serious, life-threatening injuries, police said. He was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
Kristofak served as a Passionist priest at the Holy Family Passionist Retreat Center, according to a Facebook post from the church.
“Father Terry had been visiting family and was on his way home at the time of the accident,” the church wrote. “We are filled with grief at the loss of such a kind, loving, and faithful friend. His presence touched the lives of so many, and his passing is a tremendous loss to our community.”
Simsbury Road was closed in both directions between King Edward Road and North Main Street while crews responded. The road has since reopened.
West Hartford police’s traffic division is investigating the crash.
The scene of the crash.
Anyone with information about the crash is asked to contact the West Hartford Police Department at 860-523-5203 or submit an anonymous tip by calling 860-570-8969 or emailing whpdtips@westhartfordct.gov.
-
Detroit, MI13 minutes agoEx-girlfriend in custody after Taylor man found fatally stabbed, police say
-
San Francisco, CA25 minutes agoMarina braces for Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show, massive crowds
-
Dallas, TX28 minutes agoMaradona’s ‘Hand of God’ ball heads to auction in Dallas
-
Miami, FL33 minutes agoMiami-Dade sheriff urges residents to celebrate Fourth of July safely
-
Boston, MA40 minutes agoJaylen Brown says Celtics showed ‘lack of respect’ after trade to 76ers – The Boston Globe
-
Denver, CO43 minutes agoWho are the Top 5 offensive linemen in Denver Broncos history?
-
Seattle, WA48 minutes agoSeattle’s Lake Union to light up with big July 4 fireworks show for America’s 250th
-
San Diego, CA55 minutes agoNew training program grants tribal members access to reservation land during emergencies
