Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Published On: May 21, 2004 07:57 AM
Published On: May 21, 2004 07:57 AM
Thu - May 20, 2004
OUT OF THE CLOSET
BREAKING NEWS
IN MY
OPINION
I recently talked to a Rowland insider on deep, deep, deep, deep did I say deep background. This person says despite the outward display of confidence that the guv tries to portray in public, this entire impeachment thing is "killing him." But at the same time this person says Row-Dog (that's my friend Stan Simpson's nickname for Rowland) he isn't going to resign...and further, he absolutely, positively doesn't believe he did anything wrong serious enough that warrants his removal from office. I say for the first time for all the world to read I believe the guv doesn't get impeached.....I'm not ready to stick my neck out yet on the federal investigation yet, but impeachment. I think the governor beats it. THERE, I SAID IT!
BEYOND THE HEADLINES
Speaking of insiders, Rowland in-house lawyer Ross Garber is a guest on BTH. http://wb20.trb.com/news/wtxx-news-beyondtheheadlines.storygallery
I recently talked to a Rowland insider on deep, deep, deep, deep did I say deep background. This person says despite the outward display of confidence that the guv tries to portray in public, this entire impeachment thing is "killing him." But at the same time this person says Row-Dog (that's my friend Stan Simpson's nickname for Rowland) he isn't going to resign...and further, he absolutely, positively doesn't believe he did anything wrong serious enough that warrants his removal from office. I say for the first time for all the world to read I believe the guv doesn't get impeached.....I'm not ready to stick my neck out yet on the federal investigation yet, but impeachment. I think the governor beats it. THERE, I SAID IT!
BEYOND THE HEADLINES
Speaking of insiders, Rowland in-house lawyer Ross Garber is a guest on BTH. http://wb20.trb.com/news/wtxx-news-beyondtheheadlines.storygallery
Posted at 11:42 PM Read More
Thu - May 13, 2004
IT'S BEEN AWHILE
WHY I HAVE BEEN
AWAY
LONG TIME NO
SEE
This is for those that still check to see if I'm still in business. Basically I got tired of "bloging" about the Rowland scandal everyday. I personally have come to my own conclusions about this impeachment thing, and in the interest of trying to maintain my objectivity as a reporter it was time for me to pull back on sharing my own thoughts on my blog. But I'm beginning to get the itch again to say a few things so I'll be posting again on a regular basis. Plus, the congressional campaigns will be heating up soon and I'll definitely have a lot to say about those races. But a blog is nothing without group participation, so please share, share, share.
BEYOND THE HEADLINES
Thanks for all the wonderful feedback
http://wb20.trb.com/news/wtxx-news-beyondtheheadlines.storygallery
This is for those that still check to see if I'm still in business. Basically I got tired of "bloging" about the Rowland scandal everyday. I personally have come to my own conclusions about this impeachment thing, and in the interest of trying to maintain my objectivity as a reporter it was time for me to pull back on sharing my own thoughts on my blog. But I'm beginning to get the itch again to say a few things so I'll be posting again on a regular basis. Plus, the congressional campaigns will be heating up soon and I'll definitely have a lot to say about those races. But a blog is nothing without group participation, so please share, share, share.
BEYOND THE HEADLINES
Thanks for all the wonderful feedback
http://wb20.trb.com/news/wtxx-news-beyondtheheadlines.storygallery
Posted at 12:05 AM Read More
Sun - March 7, 2004
A REALLY GOOD SHOW
TRY IT YOU MIGHT LIKE
IT
A REALLY FUN SHOW
Check out this weeks Beyond the Headlines. We have a great show this week, with great topics and guests. http://wb20.trb.com/news/wtxx-news-beyondtheheadlines.storygallery
Posted at 12:39 AM Read More
Sat - March 6, 2004
THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING
SENATE TO VOTE ON
JUDGE
THE WEEK
AHEAD
Two significant political events this week. But from my seat one is much bigger politically than the other. First, on Monday lawyers for the impeachment panel and the governor will argue what an impeachable offense is. The guv's peeps say he should only be removed for serious, criminal offenses, the impeachment lawyer say his removal can be for non-criminal activities. While this particular debate is an important step in the process, I'm keeping my eye on what is going to happen on Wednesday. That's when the State Senate will vote on whether Judge James Robertson should be confirmed. When the Senate vote was postponed last week no new date was immediately scheduled. But late Friday word broke that the vote will be held this Wednesday. So what happened? Me think that backroom efforts to get Robertson to voluntarily step away failed. And Senate President Kevin Sullivan said the hell with it, let's not prolong this thing, let's have a vote and let whatever happens happens. I'm not ready to make a prediction on what the outcome will be, but as I have been lamenting lately, if Robertson is confirmed, I think it will be incredibly difficult for legislators to justify impeaching and then removing Rowland from office.
AND WHAT SAY YOU?
This blog is intended to be somewhat interactive. And I don't ask much of the people that say they read the Potpourri (and give me grief when I don't post something new as often as they want me too!) But I am looking for feedback on my theory about Judge Robertson's appointment having a direct impact on Rowland's impeachment. Whether you share my view or not let me know what you think. Thanks.
Two significant political events this week. But from my seat one is much bigger politically than the other. First, on Monday lawyers for the impeachment panel and the governor will argue what an impeachable offense is. The guv's peeps say he should only be removed for serious, criminal offenses, the impeachment lawyer say his removal can be for non-criminal activities. While this particular debate is an important step in the process, I'm keeping my eye on what is going to happen on Wednesday. That's when the State Senate will vote on whether Judge James Robertson should be confirmed. When the Senate vote was postponed last week no new date was immediately scheduled. But late Friday word broke that the vote will be held this Wednesday. So what happened? Me think that backroom efforts to get Robertson to voluntarily step away failed. And Senate President Kevin Sullivan said the hell with it, let's not prolong this thing, let's have a vote and let whatever happens happens. I'm not ready to make a prediction on what the outcome will be, but as I have been lamenting lately, if Robertson is confirmed, I think it will be incredibly difficult for legislators to justify impeaching and then removing Rowland from office.
AND WHAT SAY YOU?
This blog is intended to be somewhat interactive. And I don't ask much of the people that say they read the Potpourri (and give me grief when I don't post something new as often as they want me too!) But I am looking for feedback on my theory about Judge Robertson's appointment having a direct impact on Rowland's impeachment. Whether you share my view or not let me know what you think. Thanks.
Posted at 12:29 AM Read More
Thu - March 4, 2004
JUDGEMENT DAY
POLITICAL COURAGE LACKING
MY
PREDICTION
Quite a few people are predicting that Judge James Robertson will step aside and not continue to move forward in his legislative confirmation process. WRONG! I believe the governor is loving this. He doesn't want Robertson to walk away, he wants, say I, to put lawmakers on the political hot seat to vote the judge up or down. Lawmakers on the other hand would prefer for Robertson to walk away on his own. But just as the governor has resisted all calls for him to resign, you can bet Robertson, at the direction of Rowland, will not, I repeat will not drop out. And if, again this is my prediction, if the Robertson confirmation is eventually voted on and he is approved, I don't see how there is anyway Rowland gets impeached. Loophole or not, if legislators can't say no to a man that provided a hundred thousand dollars in free legal services to the guv , his law firm gets 6 million in state work and then the guv appoints him to a judgeship, then I believe making a legitimate case to REMOVE the governor from office will be politically impossible.
Quite a few people are predicting that Judge James Robertson will step aside and not continue to move forward in his legislative confirmation process. WRONG! I believe the governor is loving this. He doesn't want Robertson to walk away, he wants, say I, to put lawmakers on the political hot seat to vote the judge up or down. Lawmakers on the other hand would prefer for Robertson to walk away on his own. But just as the governor has resisted all calls for him to resign, you can bet Robertson, at the direction of Rowland, will not, I repeat will not drop out. And if, again this is my prediction, if the Robertson confirmation is eventually voted on and he is approved, I don't see how there is anyway Rowland gets impeached. Loophole or not, if legislators can't say no to a man that provided a hundred thousand dollars in free legal services to the guv , his law firm gets 6 million in state work and then the guv appoints him to a judgeship, then I believe making a legitimate case to REMOVE the governor from office will be politically impossible.
Posted at 12:05 AM Read More
Wed - February 25, 2004
HELLO
WELCOME TO THE
POTPOURRI
Welcome!
I'll assume that after some recent publicity (primarily my news package on tonight's newscast ) some of you are checking out my weblog for the first time. First the DISCLAIMER: The thoughts expressed here in this space are mine and not that of my employer Fox 61. I try to update the blog on a regular basis. Sometimes I blog daily, other times I may go a day or two, or three, or four without entering a post.
Like a lot of people, I get a kick out of politics. I also get paid to cover it on a daily basis. So, the blog is an opportunity for me to share some of my observations and yes, opinions, about the goings on in politics in Connecticut. I invite feedback and want to thank the loyal readers who have engaged me in political discourse. And if you like politics, this is a great time to be in Connecticut. But if you are looking for an outlet that will focus primarily on the political scandal of the day, The Potpourri may not be the place for you. Sure, I'll spend a fair amount of time on the Rowland impeachment issue, but I also love political campaigns and the people that run them. At the same time when political participation is down and political acrimony is at an all time high, I want to try and make politics, GASP! fun!!! So sit back enjoy, join in and speak up!
DISCLAIMER 2:
Please, please, please forgive all typos, spelling mistakes and grammar slip ups. My blog is a free flowing train of thought...I think..... I type.... I upload......I usually don't notice any mistakes until they are already posted on my site.
I'll assume that after some recent publicity (primarily my news package on tonight's newscast ) some of you are checking out my weblog for the first time. First the DISCLAIMER: The thoughts expressed here in this space are mine and not that of my employer Fox 61. I try to update the blog on a regular basis. Sometimes I blog daily, other times I may go a day or two, or three, or four without entering a post.
Like a lot of people, I get a kick out of politics. I also get paid to cover it on a daily basis. So, the blog is an opportunity for me to share some of my observations and yes, opinions, about the goings on in politics in Connecticut. I invite feedback and want to thank the loyal readers who have engaged me in political discourse. And if you like politics, this is a great time to be in Connecticut. But if you are looking for an outlet that will focus primarily on the political scandal of the day, The Potpourri may not be the place for you. Sure, I'll spend a fair amount of time on the Rowland impeachment issue, but I also love political campaigns and the people that run them. At the same time when political participation is down and political acrimony is at an all time high, I want to try and make politics, GASP! fun!!! So sit back enjoy, join in and speak up!
DISCLAIMER 2:
Please, please, please forgive all typos, spelling mistakes and grammar slip ups. My blog is a free flowing train of thought...I think..... I type.... I upload......I usually don't notice any mistakes until they are already posted on my site.
Posted at 09:45 PM Read More
Tue - February 24, 2004
CT PRIMARY IS A WEEK AWAY
SUPER TUESDAY -- A BIG
YAWN
HEADS
UP
Please let me know if you happen to run across ANY of the Democratic candidates in Connecticut. It's unlikely we will see Kerry, Edwards or for that matter Sharpton in the Nutmeg State before Tuesday. But I bet whoever the dems nominate that candidate will find their way to CT before the general election. But don't expect to see them in Hartford, or Waterbury. No, the democratic nominee will spend what little time they may in money rich Fairfield County hands outstretched looking for much needed campaign cash. New Haven might be the only exception: Out of respect to Joe Lieberman the eventual candidate (and I still haven't ruled out Senator Edwards winning the nomination) may make a quick pit stop in the Elm City.
Please let me know if you happen to run across ANY of the Democratic candidates in Connecticut. It's unlikely we will see Kerry, Edwards or for that matter Sharpton in the Nutmeg State before Tuesday. But I bet whoever the dems nominate that candidate will find their way to CT before the general election. But don't expect to see them in Hartford, or Waterbury. No, the democratic nominee will spend what little time they may in money rich Fairfield County hands outstretched looking for much needed campaign cash. New Haven might be the only exception: Out of respect to Joe Lieberman the eventual candidate (and I still haven't ruled out Senator Edwards winning the nomination) may make a quick pit stop in the Elm City.
Posted at 11:33 PM Read More
THE NEW WEBSITE IS HERE
THANKS E-MEDIA STUDENTS
Hey folks, I'm pleased and very proud to announce a
new political website that I hope you check out from time to time. www.fox61.com/politics .
This really cool multimedia website is being co-produced by Fox 61 and the
e-Media graduate students at Quinnipiac University. Please Check in often.
Posted at 11:10 PM Read More
Sat - February 21, 2004
HERE COMES THE JUDGE
WHAT WILL LAWMAKERS
DO?
HELP
WANTED
A few of you folks have been letting me have it for not updating the blog as frequently as you would like. If anybody would like to help me out, I'm open for guest bloggers. Send me some of your stuff and I'll be more than happy to put your political thoughts up for all the world to see.
THE JUDGE AND THE VOTE
I'm going to be keeping my eye on how the House and Senate vote on whether to confirm James K. Robertson to the Superior Court bench. Robertson as most know was Governor Rowland's longtime personal lawyer. Robertson and his law firm are still owed over 125 thousand dollars for legal work done for Rowland. But at the same time Robertson's former law firm Carmody & Torrance, was receiving millions in fees for state legal work, close to six million dollars in fact.
Last week in a near unanimous decision the Judiciary Committee citing a "loophole" affirmed Robertson's judgeship (Robertson is already serving on the bench, but his appointment by Rowland has to be approved by the legislature) According to committee members current ethics laws allowed public officials to accept free services from people doing business with the State. Apparently some believe the loophole is the distinction between services and gifts. Nonetheless, the matter of Robertson's confirmation is headed to the entire legislature for a vote. I believe the result of that vote will give a clear signal on how an impeachment vote on the guv may go down. Here's my thinking: Loophole or not, if the Judiciary committee and the entire legislative body can't take a stand and say no to a judge who has provided over a hundred thousand dollars in free legal work and then his law firm is awarded (rewarded) millions of dollars in state contracts; then don't expect them to vote yes to impeach the governor for accepting a hot tub and kitchen cabinets.
If lawmakers are as outraged as they say they are about the Governor's pattern of ethical lapses, they should use the Robertson appointment as proof. If they were the least bit serious the judiciary committee should have said no to Robertson. But since they didn't then the General Assembly should vote Robertson's appointment down. And despite new questions coming out of the ethics office that this so-called loophole may not have existed in the first place, I say the Democratic majority will ultimately confirm Robertson, offering up a bunch of political excuses why their hands are tied and they had no choice but to vote yes on Robertson. But they do have a choice. And if they can't say no to Roberston's appointment, it will be very hard to justify voting Rowland out of office.
CT JOE IS BACK
After taking last week off to go on vacation, Senator Joe Lieberman is back at work. He'll be in CT on Monday making the rounds at....surprise, surprise....local diners. It will be interesting to see if he has the same passion for his US Senate job as he had before his White House run.
A few of you folks have been letting me have it for not updating the blog as frequently as you would like. If anybody would like to help me out, I'm open for guest bloggers. Send me some of your stuff and I'll be more than happy to put your political thoughts up for all the world to see.
THE JUDGE AND THE VOTE
I'm going to be keeping my eye on how the House and Senate vote on whether to confirm James K. Robertson to the Superior Court bench. Robertson as most know was Governor Rowland's longtime personal lawyer. Robertson and his law firm are still owed over 125 thousand dollars for legal work done for Rowland. But at the same time Robertson's former law firm Carmody & Torrance, was receiving millions in fees for state legal work, close to six million dollars in fact.
Last week in a near unanimous decision the Judiciary Committee citing a "loophole" affirmed Robertson's judgeship (Robertson is already serving on the bench, but his appointment by Rowland has to be approved by the legislature) According to committee members current ethics laws allowed public officials to accept free services from people doing business with the State. Apparently some believe the loophole is the distinction between services and gifts. Nonetheless, the matter of Robertson's confirmation is headed to the entire legislature for a vote. I believe the result of that vote will give a clear signal on how an impeachment vote on the guv may go down. Here's my thinking: Loophole or not, if the Judiciary committee and the entire legislative body can't take a stand and say no to a judge who has provided over a hundred thousand dollars in free legal work and then his law firm is awarded (rewarded) millions of dollars in state contracts; then don't expect them to vote yes to impeach the governor for accepting a hot tub and kitchen cabinets.
If lawmakers are as outraged as they say they are about the Governor's pattern of ethical lapses, they should use the Robertson appointment as proof. If they were the least bit serious the judiciary committee should have said no to Robertson. But since they didn't then the General Assembly should vote Robertson's appointment down. And despite new questions coming out of the ethics office that this so-called loophole may not have existed in the first place, I say the Democratic majority will ultimately confirm Robertson, offering up a bunch of political excuses why their hands are tied and they had no choice but to vote yes on Robertson. But they do have a choice. And if they can't say no to Roberston's appointment, it will be very hard to justify voting Rowland out of office.
CT JOE IS BACK
After taking last week off to go on vacation, Senator Joe Lieberman is back at work. He'll be in CT on Monday making the rounds at....surprise, surprise....local diners. It will be interesting to see if he has the same passion for his US Senate job as he had before his White House run.
Posted at 01:27 AM Read More
Tue - February 10, 2004
THE GUV IS FEELING BETTER THAN I
HAVE A
TISSUE?
MIXED POLL
BAG
I've been slow to post because I've been battling a really bad cold.....The guv had to be ecstatic about yesterday's UConn poll. Yes 61 percent still want him to resign, but a majority of respondents say they think criminal and not ethical misdeeds should be the standard for impeachment. It's going to be tough for lawmakers to toss him out of office based only on the guv having his hand out
MAD SULLY
This one has been brewing for at least a week or more. But Senate President Kevin Sullivan has been gunning for Public Safety Commissioner Art Spada for awhile now. Sullivan has been especially salty about the Vinny DeRosa saga involving overtime at Homeland Security and Vinny D's overall qualifications to be agency director and that little matter of DeRosa's side biz as a used car salesman. On Tuesday during a public hearing where Sullivan made a rare committee appearance he and Spada went toe-to-toe. (you may need to have a CTNOW account to read this) http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/statewire/hc-10201956.apds.m0615.bc-ct--homefeb10,1,7891659.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire
Some think Kevin is going a little bit over the top on this one, but former judge Spada hasn't helped himself by not being aware -- sooner -- of Vinny D's side job!
THE WINNER IS.......
Doug S from Manchester was the first to email back on my "Who ran against Lieberman" question. The answer of course is the now locked-up Phil Giordano. Doug beat Jason S from West Hartford by 4 minutes. But Jason saw behind my real motive and wrote "Now this was a cheap attempt to get reader interaction..." He's right, and it worked! Thanks to all for the feedback
I've been slow to post because I've been battling a really bad cold.....The guv had to be ecstatic about yesterday's UConn poll. Yes 61 percent still want him to resign, but a majority of respondents say they think criminal and not ethical misdeeds should be the standard for impeachment. It's going to be tough for lawmakers to toss him out of office based only on the guv having his hand out
MAD SULLY
This one has been brewing for at least a week or more. But Senate President Kevin Sullivan has been gunning for Public Safety Commissioner Art Spada for awhile now. Sullivan has been especially salty about the Vinny DeRosa saga involving overtime at Homeland Security and Vinny D's overall qualifications to be agency director and that little matter of DeRosa's side biz as a used car salesman. On Tuesday during a public hearing where Sullivan made a rare committee appearance he and Spada went toe-to-toe. (you may need to have a CTNOW account to read this) http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/statewire/hc-10201956.apds.m0615.bc-ct--homefeb10,1,7891659.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire
Some think Kevin is going a little bit over the top on this one, but former judge Spada hasn't helped himself by not being aware -- sooner -- of Vinny D's side job!
THE WINNER IS.......
Doug S from Manchester was the first to email back on my "Who ran against Lieberman" question. The answer of course is the now locked-up Phil Giordano. Doug beat Jason S from West Hartford by 4 minutes. But Jason saw behind my real motive and wrote "Now this was a cheap attempt to get reader interaction..." He's right, and it worked! Thanks to all for the feedback
Posted at 12:01 AM Read More
Mon - February 9, 2004
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT
ARE DEMS BEING
HYPOCRITES?
Normally I would just provide a link, but I
wasn't sure how long AP would keep this story up. But this type of story could
be the building block on why the Guv won't be forced from office. Of course,
I've been wrong before!
Legislature not always swift to act on allegations of misdeeds
February 8, 2004
Associated Press
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
Associated Press Writer
Connecticut state Sen. Edith Prague was so angry with Republican Gov. John G. Rowland that she refused to even attend his state of the state address last week.
A day later, Prague was traveling on official business with a fellow Democratic lawmaker who had served from prison after his third arrest for drunken driving.
Rowland is under fire for accepting gifts for his Litchfield cottage from friends, employees and a state contractor and later lying about it. He is the subject of a federal corruption probe and a special state House committee is investigating the governor's conduct to determine whether he has committed any impeachable offenses.
He has not been charged with committing any crimes, or convicted. Nevertheless, Prague and many Connecticut lawmakers from both parties have called for Rowland to resign.
If the special committee recommends impeachment, the full House of Representatives will vote whether to send the case to the state Senate for trial. Of the 151 members of the House who may wind up voting on impeachment, one is charged with sexually assaulting a child and another has been convicted of drunken driving.
The House has declined to take formal action against several members arrested on various criminal charges in recent years. For Prague and many others, the difference centers on whether the conduct in question relates directly to the office.
The lawmakers were accused of crimes unrelated to their office that did not involve benefiting from their position, they say.
"It's a strange difference, but there is a difference here," Prague said.
"I think there is a distinction related to your employment and private misdeeds," said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, who sits on the inquiry committee.
Others see a potential double standard, depending on the evidence developed in Rowland's case and the ultimate vote.
"This body in many instances has felt the need to reserve judgment before taking some action against one of its own members," said John Pavia, a former prosecutor and an adjunct professor of law at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. "I think they have the same obligation with the governor."
No attempt has ever been made to remove a sitting governor in Connecticut. The Connecticut Constitution includes only three short paragraphs about the process.
A spokesman for Rowland declined to comment on the cases involving lawmakers.
Pavia, a Republican, has warned against creating a confusing standard.
"Who, for example, would ever be able to explain why the legislature moved to remove Rowland when it has never taken any action against one of its own members who is currently awaiting trial on multiple felony counts?" Pavia wrote in a recent newspaper editorial.
That was a reference to state Rep. Jefferson Davis, a Pomfret Democrat charged with sexually assaulting a child. Davis, who has pleaded not guilty, voted in favor of creating the committee that is looking into Rowland's conduct.
"I have continuing responsibility as a legislator," Davis said Friday.
Davis said he has not faced pressure to resign.
"The charges against me have nothing to do with my legislative work," Davis said.
On Thursday Prague, D-Columbia, was driving state Rep. Kevin Ryan, a fellow Democrat from Montville, to a union meeting. Ryan remained in the legislature while he served four months in prison for drunken driving and has since been promoted to co-chairman of the labor committee.
"I was angry at him when it happened," said Prague, sitting next to Ryan, whose license is suspended. "He paid his price to society and he's a very good legislator."
Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca, R-Woodbury, said the distinction underscores a double standard.
"She's right, they are different: One was convicted and the other has not even been indicted," DeLuca said. "They're using a ruler for one and a yardstick for another."
House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, said that in retrospect he wishes he had called for Ryan's resignation when he was sentenced to prison.
But Ward noted that Ryan has been re-elected, so the judgment of his constituents should be respected. He also drew a distinction between allegations of public corruption and other cases.
"I think the general sense was to allow the criminal justice system to work for offenses that didn't relate to public corruption," Ward said.
Ryan declined to comment. He did not cast a vote on the inquiry.
Connecticut lawmakers are not alone in showing a reluctance to take action against their colleagues.
"Sometimes legislators tend not to want to get into the private area," said Brenda Erickson, senior research analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It's a very difficult area, especially determining the private-public aspect."
Expelling a member is rare, but more than a dozen states have expelled lawmakers over the years, Erickson said. Others, including Connecticut, have censured members or taken other disciplinary steps, she said.
"I think they weigh it to determine how much it's going to impact the legislator's ability to be a legislator and the impact on the institution," Erickson said. "But the reality is if it's something that raises a lot of concern, most often the people are pressured into resigning and leaving."
In Wisconsin, legislative leaders sent a letter of reprimand to a member in 1995 after his third arrest for various violations such as drunken driving and marijuana possession.
Prague called Ryan's third arrest a personal problem. But when Republican Rep. William Varese was arrested on drunken driving charges in 1998, she asked him to step down from a committee and abstain from voting on her bill to lower the drunken driving threshold.
Prague was criticized by other lawmakers at the time. "I think it's wrong whenever a colleague gets involved in judging another colleague," said Senate President Kevin Sullivan, D-West Hartford.
House Speaker Moira Lyons, D-Stamford, said each case must be considered individually.
As Ryan prepared to head off to prison, Lyons said at the time she would not ask him to step down. Ryan had begun treatment for an alcohol problem, and had made special arrangements to ensure he stayed in close touch with his office, Lyons said.
Lyons said last week that there was no outcry for Ryan's resignation. Rowland admitted wrongdoing, while Davis has denied the allegations against him, Lyons said.
Lyons said lawmakers did privately encourage former state Rep. Donnie Sellers to resign after he was charged with taking a bribe in exchange for a pistol permit recommendation. Sellers resigned after his January 1997 conviction.
"I think the governor needs to be held to a certain standard. We all do," Lyons said. "We all have to get our day in court."
Scott McLean, associate professor of political science at Quinnipiac, said lawmakers are reluctant to pass judgment on colleagues.
"My sense of it is they all belong to a club," McLean said. "They don't want to start pointing fingers or removing one another because there is no clear end to it. He who lives in a glass statehouse should not throw stones."
Legislature not always swift to act on allegations of misdeeds
February 8, 2004
Associated Press
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
Associated Press Writer
Connecticut state Sen. Edith Prague was so angry with Republican Gov. John G. Rowland that she refused to even attend his state of the state address last week.
A day later, Prague was traveling on official business with a fellow Democratic lawmaker who had served from prison after his third arrest for drunken driving.
Rowland is under fire for accepting gifts for his Litchfield cottage from friends, employees and a state contractor and later lying about it. He is the subject of a federal corruption probe and a special state House committee is investigating the governor's conduct to determine whether he has committed any impeachable offenses.
He has not been charged with committing any crimes, or convicted. Nevertheless, Prague and many Connecticut lawmakers from both parties have called for Rowland to resign.
If the special committee recommends impeachment, the full House of Representatives will vote whether to send the case to the state Senate for trial. Of the 151 members of the House who may wind up voting on impeachment, one is charged with sexually assaulting a child and another has been convicted of drunken driving.
The House has declined to take formal action against several members arrested on various criminal charges in recent years. For Prague and many others, the difference centers on whether the conduct in question relates directly to the office.
The lawmakers were accused of crimes unrelated to their office that did not involve benefiting from their position, they say.
"It's a strange difference, but there is a difference here," Prague said.
"I think there is a distinction related to your employment and private misdeeds," said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, who sits on the inquiry committee.
Others see a potential double standard, depending on the evidence developed in Rowland's case and the ultimate vote.
"This body in many instances has felt the need to reserve judgment before taking some action against one of its own members," said John Pavia, a former prosecutor and an adjunct professor of law at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. "I think they have the same obligation with the governor."
No attempt has ever been made to remove a sitting governor in Connecticut. The Connecticut Constitution includes only three short paragraphs about the process.
A spokesman for Rowland declined to comment on the cases involving lawmakers.
Pavia, a Republican, has warned against creating a confusing standard.
"Who, for example, would ever be able to explain why the legislature moved to remove Rowland when it has never taken any action against one of its own members who is currently awaiting trial on multiple felony counts?" Pavia wrote in a recent newspaper editorial.
That was a reference to state Rep. Jefferson Davis, a Pomfret Democrat charged with sexually assaulting a child. Davis, who has pleaded not guilty, voted in favor of creating the committee that is looking into Rowland's conduct.
"I have continuing responsibility as a legislator," Davis said Friday.
Davis said he has not faced pressure to resign.
"The charges against me have nothing to do with my legislative work," Davis said.
On Thursday Prague, D-Columbia, was driving state Rep. Kevin Ryan, a fellow Democrat from Montville, to a union meeting. Ryan remained in the legislature while he served four months in prison for drunken driving and has since been promoted to co-chairman of the labor committee.
"I was angry at him when it happened," said Prague, sitting next to Ryan, whose license is suspended. "He paid his price to society and he's a very good legislator."
Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca, R-Woodbury, said the distinction underscores a double standard.
"She's right, they are different: One was convicted and the other has not even been indicted," DeLuca said. "They're using a ruler for one and a yardstick for another."
House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, said that in retrospect he wishes he had called for Ryan's resignation when he was sentenced to prison.
But Ward noted that Ryan has been re-elected, so the judgment of his constituents should be respected. He also drew a distinction between allegations of public corruption and other cases.
"I think the general sense was to allow the criminal justice system to work for offenses that didn't relate to public corruption," Ward said.
Ryan declined to comment. He did not cast a vote on the inquiry.
Connecticut lawmakers are not alone in showing a reluctance to take action against their colleagues.
"Sometimes legislators tend not to want to get into the private area," said Brenda Erickson, senior research analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It's a very difficult area, especially determining the private-public aspect."
Expelling a member is rare, but more than a dozen states have expelled lawmakers over the years, Erickson said. Others, including Connecticut, have censured members or taken other disciplinary steps, she said.
"I think they weigh it to determine how much it's going to impact the legislator's ability to be a legislator and the impact on the institution," Erickson said. "But the reality is if it's something that raises a lot of concern, most often the people are pressured into resigning and leaving."
In Wisconsin, legislative leaders sent a letter of reprimand to a member in 1995 after his third arrest for various violations such as drunken driving and marijuana possession.
Prague called Ryan's third arrest a personal problem. But when Republican Rep. William Varese was arrested on drunken driving charges in 1998, she asked him to step down from a committee and abstain from voting on her bill to lower the drunken driving threshold.
Prague was criticized by other lawmakers at the time. "I think it's wrong whenever a colleague gets involved in judging another colleague," said Senate President Kevin Sullivan, D-West Hartford.
House Speaker Moira Lyons, D-Stamford, said each case must be considered individually.
As Ryan prepared to head off to prison, Lyons said at the time she would not ask him to step down. Ryan had begun treatment for an alcohol problem, and had made special arrangements to ensure he stayed in close touch with his office, Lyons said.
Lyons said last week that there was no outcry for Ryan's resignation. Rowland admitted wrongdoing, while Davis has denied the allegations against him, Lyons said.
Lyons said lawmakers did privately encourage former state Rep. Donnie Sellers to resign after he was charged with taking a bribe in exchange for a pistol permit recommendation. Sellers resigned after his January 1997 conviction.
"I think the governor needs to be held to a certain standard. We all do," Lyons said. "We all have to get our day in court."
Scott McLean, associate professor of political science at Quinnipiac, said lawmakers are reluctant to pass judgment on colleagues.
"My sense of it is they all belong to a club," McLean said. "They don't want to start pointing fingers or removing one another because there is no clear end to it. He who lives in a glass statehouse should not throw stones."
Posted at 12:57 AM Read More
Fri - February 6, 2004
THE WEEK THAT WAS
MANY SAID THE GUV WOULDN'T DO
IT
(SORRY, SORRY, SORRY: I thought I had uploaded this post late Friday night. It wasn't until I got a few emails from folks asking me when I was going to post something new that I realized something had gone wrong.)
(DISCLAIMER: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG ARE MINE AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER FOX 61)
THE SPEECH
Had to take a few days off to catch my breath after a hectic week. But if you like politics, (and soap operas) this was a week to remember in Connecticut. Let's start with the State of the State Address. The past six State of the State addresses I've covered I've always stood in the back of the House chambers to take in the guv's speech. Standing in the back made it easier to get lawmaker reaction after the speech as they reps and senators would always make their way to the back of the room to be interviewed. Not this year! I got a front row view, (well actually a side row view next to the speakers podium in the area usually reserved for print media....there was even a shot of my head in Thursday's New Haven Register) I wanted to see close up how the governor was going to hold up, AND I wanted to look directly into the eyes of the legislators as they listened.
There was NO applause for Rowland until he was literally four steps on the Speaker's riser (By comparison Lt Gov. Jodi Rell got a rousing ovation). I sensed a slight quiver in the governor's voice when he began his speech, but that quickly disagreed and he went on to deliver one of the longgggggest State of the State addresses he's ever given. Hell, why not, who knows if this will be his last major address before the legislature he might as well go out with a bang!
As for the speech itself, eh! Nothing really spectacular. He touted his accomplishments from the past, offered up modest tax increase (boy I'm glad I no longer smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol) Folks sitting in the audience as guest of the governor included war vets (he proposed free college scholarships for the children of vets killed in Iraq and Afghanistan), an elderly faith-based provider, and inner city school kids from a successful charter program. The governor also proposed a variety of legislation that should make a variety of constituency groups happy...in fact Bridgeport Rep. Chris Caruso(D) got in a good line saying the guv promised something for everybody except the janitors that clean up the building.
FALLOUT
But that type of biting sarcasm from Caruso and a few other legislative democrats may ultimately turn the up until now bipartisan impeachment process into a very partisan battle. Rowland would love for the investigation into his ethical conduct morph into political warfare. Up until now the dems and "r's" have been playing nice with one another as it related to the forming of the inquiry panel. But I'm getting a sense from a number of republicans, maybe not a majority quite yet, but a growing number hope Rowland survives this crisis. Just looking at a few of them as they watched Rowland speak, you could see a few almost saying 'now that's the Johnny Boy I love.' But jumping out in front of the Let's Save the Governor" campaign isn't politically viable right now. However, if they can get those mean old Democrats to start taking political jabs at Rowland that go beyond the politically acceptable "we think he should resign" rhetoric, republicans may have a political opening where they could accuse the dems of conducting a political witch hunt instead of an investigation. I'll go out on a limb and predict that scenario will eventually happen. Here's why: The State of the State address is really one of the last big "things" that is going to happen for awhile. Yes the impeachment committee still needs to hire a law firm and that story will get big coverage. So will the terms the committee sets on what exactly they have determined what an impeachable offense is. And Friday's Ethics Commission ruling on whether the governor has broken any ethics laws.
But as the daily "death watch" of the governor lessens, and the daily grind of the legislative session gets going, it's likely more than a few democrats not directly involved with the impeachment panel will get bored and begin to mix it up with reporters and make public comments and negative pre-judgments about the guv's guilt. Those statements, I predict, will be used by the guv and his supporters to make their case that much of this investigation has been more about political revenge then about investigating his admitted ethical mistakes. Because dems hold a majority in the house, and since only a simple majority is needed to impeach it's quite possible that Rowland might be impeached. However four Republican Senators (assuming all of the democratic senators vote to convict) would have to vote to convict and remove the governor from office. If this process tumbles down the road of political, partisan bickering, then that might just be the out the governor needs to stay in office. But as I have said in the past, all bets are off if the feds come a calling with an indictment.
JOE-MENTUM IS DEAD
It would be easy to sit back and lampoon the Joe Lieberman presidential campaign, but I won't. From a selfish standpoint I was hoping he would make it at leas tot the Democratic Convention in Boston. That way I would be guaranteed a great media spot at the convention. Bottom line: Democratic primary voters just weren't feeling CT Joe....no doubt Lieberman's unwavering support of the War in Iraq probably did a lot more harm than good. Yes Lieberman criticized the President's handling of the war, but primary voters apparently didn't want to support someone who was often dubbed Bush-lite for his moderate to conservative views. Now that he is back to being a full-time senator, it has to be a let down. At his homecoming at Hartford City Hall democratic supporters say despite missing plenty of votes because of his presidential activities he has nothing to be sorry about and Ct voters will continue to support him overwhelmingly. Maybe, maybe not, CT Joe will have to once again show the passion for his new, old job as he did on the campaign trail for president if he truly wants to regain the adulation he enjoyed in the past. Don't be surprised to see State Republicans to mount a fairly serious challenge against Lieberman in 2006 if Lieberman looks the least bit vulnerable. And I'll give a Potpourri shout-out to the first person that emails me with the name of the republican that ran against Lieberman in 2000 for his U.S. Senate seat.
Posted at 07:56 PM Read More
Tue - February 3, 2004
THE BIG SPEECH IS HERE
AND CT JOE SAYS
ENUFF
I'm going t keep it real brief today. That's because
tomorrow is going to be a very, very busy political day. The station has me
covering BOTH big stories---first the guv's state of the state speech and then
CT Joe comes home to lick his wounds. A full report tomorrow.
Posted at 10:30 PM Read More
Mon - February 2, 2004
THE QUITE
BEFORE THE
SPEECH
For the first time in well over a month things were
very, very quite at the State Capitol. Oh, people were busy, reporters were
reporting and the impeachment panel was busy interviewing lawyers, but it just
had a low key, dare I say almost normal feel in the halls of the Capitol. It
hasn't felt that way in over a month. I even heard a few reporters talking about
the BUDGET!
THE SPEECH
The most anticipated speech in the history of state politics is a day away. But I'm getting late word that the guv won't be saying much in his speech about his problems....a passing reference at best. He plans to stick to the nuts and bolts of government in his address. He'll leave the political spin of his speech and the politics of his speech to others. And you know there will be plenty of spin!
SECURITY
If you want to catch the guv's speech on Wednesday, you better have a press pass. Capitol Police will be keeping spectators and possible hecklers far, far away
THE SPEECH
The most anticipated speech in the history of state politics is a day away. But I'm getting late word that the guv won't be saying much in his speech about his problems....a passing reference at best. He plans to stick to the nuts and bolts of government in his address. He'll leave the political spin of his speech and the politics of his speech to others. And you know there will be plenty of spin!
SECURITY
If you want to catch the guv's speech on Wednesday, you better have a press pass. Capitol Police will be keeping spectators and possible hecklers far, far away
Posted at 11:05 PM Read More
Fri - January 30, 2004
A FEW THOUGHTS
CT JOE AND STATE OF THE
STATE
(DISCLAIMER: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE
MINE AND NOT ENDORSED BY MY EMPLOYER FOX
61)
It took a few days to recover from a whirlwind trip to New Hampshire and the primaries. CT Joe is done! Even if he pulls off a win in Delaware on Tuesday. And Delaware is no safe bet. Though he has spent a lot of time there and gotten a bunch of endorsements from state pols, Kerry is picking up steam and will probably overtake Lieberman in Delaware too.
It's going to be hard for Joe to leave the presidential stage. There are plenty of reasons why his campaign just hasn't caught fire. But the biggest reason why I believe CT Joe doesn't want to abort his presidential hopes is because, well, the attention he gets on the national stage is intoxicating. No doubt it's a lot of hard work campaigning for president, but it has to be cool as hell too! As a reporter that's gotten to cover this campaign a little bit as well as the Gore/Lieberman campaign in 2000 I can tell you it's an incredible experience there is nothing like it! You're out and about talking to people, mixing it up, talking politics. Yes, there is the dirty side of having to raise a bunch of money and also dealing with us in the media, but the opportunity to crisscross the country and put your heart and soul on the line all with the hopes of achieving the ultimate political dream -- The White House. That said, my prediction is presidential candidate Lieberman soon comes home to Connecticut to once again become Senator Lieberman within the next two weeks.
ROWLAND STATE OF THE STATE
I can't think of too many other events at the Capitol, or for that matter anywhere in the State, that will be as anxiously anticipated as Wednesday's State of the State address by Governor Rowland. The focus of course won't be on what he says, but that he's going ahead with the speech in light of everything going on. Senator Edith Prague told me on Thursday that she was boycotting the speech. But most legislators are expected to show up. But the most governor Rowland should expect is polite applause.
NORMAL BUSINESS?
The guv gave reporters and others a sneak peak of his budget. And surprise surprise no more cuts for aide to cities and towns or Connpace. Democrats are promising to raise the Millionaire's tax again! The guv has resisted that tax increase since forever and has always veto any budget that's included an income tax boost on the very rich. But here is a question to think about this weekend: Do you think the dems would ever tell the guv on the down low (behind closed doors for the un-hip) that if he supports a big income tax boost for the super rich they'll guarantee that if an impeachment vote ever came to the house floor the dems would vote it down?
SHOUT OUT
I want to give a Potpourri shout out to Barton Russell a regular reader of this blog and who I had the chance to meet in person this week. Barton is the Executive Director of the CT Council of Small Towns.
BEYOND THE HEADLINES
We have a good show this Sunday: Rowland, Lieberman and a discussion on the number one killer to women, heart disease. BTH, Sunday at 11 am on WTXX WB 20
It took a few days to recover from a whirlwind trip to New Hampshire and the primaries. CT Joe is done! Even if he pulls off a win in Delaware on Tuesday. And Delaware is no safe bet. Though he has spent a lot of time there and gotten a bunch of endorsements from state pols, Kerry is picking up steam and will probably overtake Lieberman in Delaware too.
It's going to be hard for Joe to leave the presidential stage. There are plenty of reasons why his campaign just hasn't caught fire. But the biggest reason why I believe CT Joe doesn't want to abort his presidential hopes is because, well, the attention he gets on the national stage is intoxicating. No doubt it's a lot of hard work campaigning for president, but it has to be cool as hell too! As a reporter that's gotten to cover this campaign a little bit as well as the Gore/Lieberman campaign in 2000 I can tell you it's an incredible experience there is nothing like it! You're out and about talking to people, mixing it up, talking politics. Yes, there is the dirty side of having to raise a bunch of money and also dealing with us in the media, but the opportunity to crisscross the country and put your heart and soul on the line all with the hopes of achieving the ultimate political dream -- The White House. That said, my prediction is presidential candidate Lieberman soon comes home to Connecticut to once again become Senator Lieberman within the next two weeks.
ROWLAND STATE OF THE STATE
I can't think of too many other events at the Capitol, or for that matter anywhere in the State, that will be as anxiously anticipated as Wednesday's State of the State address by Governor Rowland. The focus of course won't be on what he says, but that he's going ahead with the speech in light of everything going on. Senator Edith Prague told me on Thursday that she was boycotting the speech. But most legislators are expected to show up. But the most governor Rowland should expect is polite applause.
NORMAL BUSINESS?
The guv gave reporters and others a sneak peak of his budget. And surprise surprise no more cuts for aide to cities and towns or Connpace. Democrats are promising to raise the Millionaire's tax again! The guv has resisted that tax increase since forever and has always veto any budget that's included an income tax boost on the very rich. But here is a question to think about this weekend: Do you think the dems would ever tell the guv on the down low (behind closed doors for the un-hip) that if he supports a big income tax boost for the super rich they'll guarantee that if an impeachment vote ever came to the house floor the dems would vote it down?
SHOUT OUT
I want to give a Potpourri shout out to Barton Russell a regular reader of this blog and who I had the chance to meet in person this week. Barton is the Executive Director of the CT Council of Small Towns.
BEYOND THE HEADLINES
We have a good show this Sunday: Rowland, Lieberman and a discussion on the number one killer to women, heart disease. BTH, Sunday at 11 am on WTXX WB 20
Posted at 04:02 PM Read More
THE WEEK AHEAD
IT'S ON
THE CHOSEN 10
FROM CITY HALL
JOE-MENTUM?
I PAID FOR IT
POLITICAL VICTORY?
DOWN AND DIRTY?
ONE DOWN, QUITE A FEW MORE TO GO
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUN TO COVER!
I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF
SHAYS TALKS TOUGH
THE PRESIDENT IS COMING!
2nd AND 5TH DISTRICT DEMS GETTING READY