Malloy Should Expand Storm Probe To Include Cox Communications

November 8, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Restoring phone, internet, and television services are a lower priority than restoring power.  No one died because they couldn’t watch this year’s college football game of the century.

This post isn’t about that. 

It is about the response of a utility to a significant storm.

Where I live, we have been without phone, television or internet since 5:00 on Saturday, October 30th. Today is November 8th.

Yesterday, I contacted Cox, they acknowledged the outage and had no estimate of when it will be restored. Ten days after a storm and you have no idea when service will be restored? A communications company? Not my friend in the digital age.

I know the storm was bad but people less than a mile away have service and to my untrained eye there does not appear to be any downed wires in between.

Cox’s  failure to communicate with its customers and to restore service will have me looking elsewhere when my contract is up. No outage map on its website. No messages about the outage. Nothing. Just ads to “Build Your Bundle”.

CL&P is getting most of the well deserved heat for their handling of this storm but Governor Malloy should expand his inquiry to Cox. This outage has hurt home businesses in my neighborhood and is bad for business in Connecticut.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With:

Insult to Injury: Connecticut’s Rape Kit Backlog

September 14, 2011 by 2 Comments

OLR (my favorite office in State Government aside from LCO) just completed a shocking report on Connecticut’s shameful rape kit backlog.

One of the great difficulties in representing someone who is the victim of a crime is explaining the length of time it takes to get reports back from the State. Despite all of the bluster one reads about State Government being too large, from my experience in dealing with all sorts of State agencies – staffing levels are bare bones which makes quick turnarounds of almost anything impossible.

With that in mind OLR’s Rape Kit Backlog report perhaps isn’t that shocking:

-Two hundred five kits are waiting to be processed; the lab estimates that it will take more than six months to finish testing them. Another 40 have been processed through the first two steps and are awaiting DNA analysis. Given existing staffing levels, it will take the lab about five months to complete those analyses, reports Major Podgorski.

-Based on our comparison with a geographically diverse group of other crime labs, we concluded that the length of time it took Connecticut’s crime lab to complete sexual assault evidence testing, particularly in cases where the rape kit was submitted with other evidence, was significantly longer than that of other labs, except Rhode Island, whose turnaround time for testing rape kits without other evidence was six months, the same as Connecticut’s.

The report does say that “forensic lab staff triages cases daily, giving priority to aggravated sexual assaults and those with elderly or young victims”.

The report also details what legislative efforts other states have taken to reduce backlog. Hopefully the General Assembly takes steps to reduce the rape kit backlog during the 2012 legislative session because our current situation is shameful.

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation Tagged With: , , ,

Malloy Proposes Cutting 450 Judicial Branch Employees

June 28, 2011 by 2 Comments

Ouch. (<——click here for a complete breakdown of proposed layoffs)

This is bad. It’s bad not only for the employees who may lose their jobs. It’s bad for the state. It’s bad for business when disputes can’t be resolved in a timely and efficient manner. Bad. Bad. Bad.

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation Tagged With: , ,

Why CT State Employees Will Be Laid Off

June 27, 2011 by 1 Comment

I’ve seen a number of posts on Facebook suggesting that State employees will not face layoffs. The posts invariably predict some last second miracle. I’m decidedly less optimistic. Here’s why:

1. The 2012 budget deficit just got larger. The union concession agreement would have realized savings starting July 1, 2011.  Layoffs won’t happen until September 1st.  No cost saving changes to health care plans will take place.  This makes some kind of “August miracle” less likely because after July 1st the State will need more and not less from the unions. If an agreement is reached prior to workers being laid off it may save some jobs but some will likely be lost as a result of our new and larger deficit hole.

Each day that passes without concessions or layoffs adds to the State deficit.

2.  Layoff notices are sure to spook some union members. It’s one thing to vote against a concession package when you think you’re safe and it’s your co-worker who is going to lose his job. Concessions look awfully attractive when you get a pink slip. Pink slips may change some minds but they won’t change enough to spare layoffs.  The package needs 14 of 15 unions and 80% of all votes to carry. The package that was rejected got 11 of 15 unions and a total of 57% of all members. The gap is too large to yield the necessary concessions; and

3.  With a larger deficit caused by the unions rejecting the initial concession package – it is impossible for Malloy to go back to the unions with a more generous package and the unions are not going to accept a less generous package.

The only option is layoffs.

I hope I’m wrong but I think I’m right. What do you think?

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation

Amazon To A CT Law Blog: You’re Fired Because of New Tax

June 10, 2011 by 4 Comments

If you scroll down to the bottom of this page, you’ll see a little amazon widget.  I participate in the Amazon Associates Program.  I get paid when people click on the link and buy products from Amazon. The only people who buy things using this link are either me or my family. Every quarter I get an Amazon gift card in some amount based on a formula.

Since I began as an associate in September 2010, this has resulted in $34.87 in income from this site. This morning, Amazon fired me.

May be I should relocate to another state? Why can’t I be, aconnecticutlawblog.com with headquarters in Idaho?

Here’s their letter to me:

Hello,

For well over a decade, the Amazon Associates Program has worked with thousands of Connecticut residents. Unfortunately, the budget signed by Governor Malloy contains a sales tax provision that compels us to terminate this program for Connecticut-based participants effective immediately. It specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers – including but not limited to those referred by Connecticut-based affiliates like you – even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.

We opposed this new tax law because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It was supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside Connecticut, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue. We deeply regret that we must take this action.

As a result of the new law, contracts with all Connecticut residents participating in the Amazon Associates Program will be terminated today, June 10, 2011. Those Connecticut residents will no longer receive advertising fees for sales referred to Amazon.com,Endless.com, MYHABIT.COM or SmallParts.com. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned on or before today, June 10, 2011, will be processed and paid in full in accordance with the regular payment schedule.

You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are a resident of Connecticut. If you are not currently a resident of Connecticut, or if you are relocating to another state in the near future, you can manage the details of your Associates account here. And if you relocate to another state after June 10, 2011, please contact us for reinstatement into the Amazon Associates Program.

To avoid confusion, we would like to clarify that this development will only impact our ability to offer the Associates Program to Connecticut residents and will not affect their ability to purchase from www.amazon.com.

We have enjoyed working with you and other Connecticut-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program and, if this situation is rectified, would very much welcome the opportunity to re-open our Associates Program to Connecticut residents.

Regards,

The Amazon Associates Team

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation Tagged With: , ,

Update: CT Passes Public Cord Blood Banking Bill

June 8, 2011 by 1 Comment

Update: I’ve written twice before about Public Cord Blood Banking in Connecticut.  My interview with sponsor Senator Len Fasano is here and my original post is here.

This afternoon, I received an email from Representative David Kiner informing me that SB 152 had passed the House and Senate unanimously.  Click here to read the bill.

Great job by all who worked to make sure this important legislation was passed.

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation Tagged With:

The Best Amendment of the 2011 Legislative Session

June 2, 2011 by 3 Comments
“AN ACT CONCERNING OWNERS OF DOGS THAT HAVE VICIOUS DISPOSITIONS OR THAT BARK EXCESSIVELY. “

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed to apply to any dog engaged in any of the following activities: (1) Romping on the beach, (2) frolicking in a dog park, (3) participating in doggie day care, (4) dog sledding, (5) tracking a person, (6) treeing a raccoon, (7) chasing rabbits or butterflies, (8) riding on fire-fighting vehicles, or (9) herding livestock.” Linky goodness.

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation

CT Media Please Read Before Reporting On Damages In CT Court Cases

May 25, 2011 by Leave a Comment

This morning while making breakfast, I had a local news station on.

Somewhere between making the coffee and my english muffin, I heard a newscaster say that “so and so is suing so and so for fifteen thousand dollars.”

I thought to myself “probably not.”

I hear this several times a year on the news, so I figure I’ll use this space to clear things up.

In some states, I’ve seen pleadings that read and the Plaintiff demands $1,456,103.27 or some other crazy number.

In Connecticut state court’s that’s not the case. The plaintiff is required to attach a jurisdictional pleading that reads something like this:

The Plaintiff seeks money damages which are within the jurisdiction of the court and the amount of which exclusive of interest and costs is in excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars.

This language has nothing to do with what the Plaintiff is actually seeking in the case. Such language is applicable to cases where the plaintiff is seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

This post was originally written in June of 2008.

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation

Legal Quotes Of The Week: Transgender Edition

May 20, 2011 by Leave a Comment

All from the House Debate on the Transgender Discrimination Bill:

Transgender Pride Flag

“Today, I feel like a woman,” said House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, imagining himself as a man wanting to use a ladies room. “If you don’t let me, I’m going to sue you. CT Mirror.

John Hetherington, R-New Canaan, criticized what he considered the spirit of the anti-discrimination bill: “I feel therefore I am.” ”What we are doing is creating a class of persons who are able to define themselves,” he said. New London Day

State Rep. Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, described another bathroom scenario, this one involving his 6-year-old daughter. “Male genitalia,” he said, “If we pass this bill today, that’s what my daughter will be exposed to when we go out to a restaurant and she needs to use the bathroom, and I can’t go in there with her. New London Day.

“Tonight’s debate on adding gender identity & expression to state’s non-discrimination laws being hijacked by ugly fear-mongering.”  #sick Rep. Matt Lesser (twitter).

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation Tagged With: , , ,

The Impulse To Legislate Everything

May 13, 2011 by Leave a Comment

One of the reasons I started this blog, was to make the point that Connecticut has too many laws. We have all sorts of strange laws on virtually every issue imaginable. Sometimes these laws are benign in that for one reason or another there’s no enforcement. I’m sure many of these laws are well intentioned.

Enter the case of James Tate. Mr. Tate asked his date to the prom by taping large letters on the school. The school’s headmaster has barred Mr. Tate from attending the prom. From these humble beginnings in Shelton a national media issue was born.

I think Mr. Tate should be allowed to go to the prom. That’s my opinion.

From all I’ve see and read, Mr. Tate is a fine young man who has handled this situation with great maturity and perspective.

With the national media on the beat, it should come as  no surprise that legislation has been introduced that would allow Mr. Tate to attend the prom:

Under Perillo’s amendment, when a local or regional board of education intends to prohibit a student from attending any school-sponsored event that occurs within 30 school days prior to the final school session of the school year due to the student’s violation of a policy of the school district, the parents of said student must be provided an alternative option for punishment such as community service or a clean-up detail. New Haven Register.

The legislation would accomplish something that I agree with – namely that it would allow Mr. Tate to go to the prom.  However, this legislation is a symptom of a larger problem: here in CT there is a belief that any problem big or small can be solved through legislation.

For better or worse, whether or not Mr. Tate attends his prom,  is appropriately the decision of the Shelton High School administration.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Filed Under: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation Tagged With: , , ,
«Older Posts
home Freed McKeen