CT House Floor Session — 2026-04-09

Thank you for the privilege of being with you this day. Eternal one, spirit of the universe, on this spring morning, as the world comes alive around us, a glorious feast for the senses, we thank you and humbly ask, make us worthy of the gifts you bestow upon us so generously. Help us to see each other with the eyes of the heart. Hold us in the palm of your hand that we and all creation may be safe and thrive. Grant us wisdom. Grant us peace. Grant us courage to do what is right. Bless these dedicated leaders assembled here today that their work may ever bring honor to your name. Amen.

(ALL MEMBERS) I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I have Favorable Reports, House bills.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move we waive the reading of the House Favorable Reports and they be tabled for the Calendar and printing.

And the Daily Calendar.

Good morning, sir. For introduction.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you're an avid, very good playing basketball player.

And I know you didn't win this year, but there's next year. Second place --

Thank you. So, in the building today, in our chamber, we have the two-time champion for the Coventry Patriots High School basketball team. And I'd like to introduce them, Mr. Speaker.

We have with us Dr. Petrone, Superintendent, President. Ah, President. Yeah. It'd be better be president, right? Principal Joe Blake, and coaches Kevin Clancy, Rick Stevenson, Amy Prior. And our senior players. We have Ava Topliff, Celine Cunha, Ava Viera, Jillian Foran as our senior players. Our sophomores, as you will notice, I did not read off any juniors. So, what a team we're going to have next year. Sophomores, Reese Jeamel, Aliza Sobol, Hailey Mayo, Danielle Wheeler, Alyssa Lamarre. And our freshmen, Madison Sicard, Ava Wierzbicki, Dylan Murphy, Lacy's Roberts, and Juliana Spiesman. Please, please, give them our typical chamber round of applause for two-time champion. (applause)

Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege.

So, today, Mr. Speaker, as you can see these lovely men around me, coming up on the actual stairs are the members of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. And I am a wonderful, illustrious member of this dear fraternity. Our colors are black and old gold, as you can see. It is the first Black fraternity ever in the world. And I'm so excited. So, today, we have Alpha Day. We host a day here at the Capitol where our brothers are here today. We'll do a lot of engagement with our communities. But most importantly, we're talking about a wonderful panel of criminal justice education, and it goes forth. But just to see my brothers here today, one of our good dear brothers. Of course, everybody knows Q. So, we stand here on the shoulders of Q, but we stand here on the shoulders of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Owens, and the list goes forward. So, to the brothers of ΑΦΑ, can I get one ΑΦ? ΑΦ? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (applause)

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise for an announcement.

Thank you. I'm here with Rep. Gaiewski, and on behalf of Rep. Zullo as well, the kickball caucus. The game is on Monday at 4:30 PM. We hope to see everyone there, our fifth annual General Assembly Kickball Game. So, see you there. All our proceeds are going to United Way this year. So, trying to sell as many tickets as possible and get everyone to pack the stadium. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an announcement.

Obviously, we do this announcement for three days in a row every year. Just doing it one more time. Tonight is spring fling for the Black and Puerto Rican caucus. Please see your nearest BPRC member if you don't have tickets. And if you do, we'll see you there right after session. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to friends in the chamber. I rise for a purpose of introduction.

Mr. Speaker, this is my proud privilege that I have opportunity many times to introduce one of the most prolific dynasties in track and field in the State of Connecticut, and I will argue in the United States. I have the boys and girls indoor track and field team from Bloomfield High School. The girls' team is led by Coach Anne, and the boys' team by Coach White. They have won multiple state open championships throughout the years. They have just won the Class S State Championship this past spring. I am so proud of all the scholar athletes who are behind us. It's an honor to have you here at the Capitol, and I hope you have a great day up here. So, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can give them a round of applause. (applause)

Mr. Speaker, I'm remiss because I forgot one of the successes of this program is having quality athletic equipment, namely shoes, right? And so, I have here David and Fernanda Jacobs from Fleet Feet who gives our outstanding athletes from West Hartford Fleet Feet their shoes in which they can compete in. Thank you David, thank you Fernanda. (applause)

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I am asking a privilege to introduce somebody here.

Thank you very much. Last week I was listening to the radio, and on the radio was a young man with all kinds of great future plans. And when I listened to him, I realized that this man needs to come up here and meet our Representatives and see how the sausage is made, so to speak. So, I would like to introduce the future Waterbury mayor, Mr. DJ Duarte. He's going to run for mayor in two years. His campaign manager, Emmanuel Noble, and mom, his cheer section, Elaska. (applause) And I expect he's going to get a warm welcome today and in two years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of some introductions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Representative Kate Farrar and myself, both representing Newington, and today is Newington Day at the Capitol, an annual tradition that we've had. Unfortunately, we don't have all of our great businesses coming up here serving food like some of the other towns and cities. We'll have to work on that in the future, but we usually have a really great group of residents that join us, Mr. Speaker. We met with them earlier today talking about issues that are important to them. A lot how to go back to work or school, but we do have a group here in the well of the chamber I'd like to introduce. We have Jan and Harold Kritzman, long time Newington residents and small business owners. Town councilor Hilda Nieves, retired teacher Walter Ciplinski. We have House Dem staffer and my outreach coordinator Bernie Kellman. We have our IT Director for the Capitol and the LOB, Paul Alderucci. We have town councilor Matt Plourd. And we have our great mayor, Jon Trister. I ask the chamber to please stand and give them a round of applause. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (applause)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an announcement this morning.

Thank you, Representative Comey, very much. Thank you. Any more announcements or introductions, because we're going to launch a bill. Any more announcements? Any more champions? Any more birthdays? Nothing? We're good. See, there's always a taker when you give them the opportunity. Representative Sweet from Hamden. How was Hamden day?

It was good? Did you guys have food?

We did. It went fast.

Floor is yours, madam.

You may proceed.

You're welcome. Happy birthday to your father. Okay. Let's get down to business here. There will be a caucus at some point for both caucuses. I'm just not sure what time yet. And we have an early night to celebrate the spring fling, so let's try to stay close to our desk if we're voting, all right? With that, will the Clerk please call Calendar 109?

Representative McCarthy Vahey, the chairwoman of the Public Health Committee from the great town of Fairfield and a Notre Dame grad. You have the floor, madam.

It's a good response.

Question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. You have the floor, madam.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Klarides-Ditria of the 105th, you have the floor, ma'am.

Please proceed.

Representative McCarthy Vahey.

Representative Klarides-Ditria.

Representative McCarthy Vahey.

Representative Klarides-Ditria.

Representative McCarthy Vahey.

Representative Klarides-Ditria.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? If not, will staff and guests please report to the well of the House? Members, take your seats, head to your portals. The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 49?

Representative Felipe of the 130, you have the floor, sir.

Getting a little boisterous in here. Thank you. The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Felipe, you have the floor, sir.

Question before the chamber is adoption. Will you remark further on the bill? Representative Scott of the 112th, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Zupkus of the 89th, you have the floor, ma'am.

Please proceed.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Zupkus.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Zupkus.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Fishbein of the 90th, you have the floor, sir.

Good morning.

Please proceed.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Fishbein.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats, head to your portals. The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 78?

Representative Meskers of the 150th, you have the floor, sir.

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Meskers, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Aniskovich of the 35th, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Ackert of the 8th District, you have the floor, sir.

Please proceed.

Representative Meskers.

Representative Ackert.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats, head to your portals. The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 67?

Representative Kavros DeGraw of the 17th, you have the floor, ma'am.

The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Kavros DeGraw, you have the floor, ma'am.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 3745, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A".

Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Kavros DeGraw, you have the floor, ma'am.

Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will your remark on the amendment? Representative Haines of the 34th, you have the floor, ma'am.

Is there objection to a voice vote? Is there objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. So, as I was saying, this bill has been around in some form or another for about the last 27 years. I would say that in the Planning and Development Committee, this is the bill that I hear from most on both sides of the aisle because it has been a real challenge for our towns over the years not to keep up with the notices, but to keep up with the cost of the notices. We have heard circumstances in which someone has to reprint an entire charter, and it cost them $100,000. I had someone else come up to me just today to say that nearly $100,000 is spent on notices. And we are not changing the requirement to have these notices. We still want to have a fully informed public in terms of all of the notices that are legally required. But we do want to make sure that the information is accessible on a town website. And if the town so choose, they could put a shorter notice into a newspaper to direct people to the actual notice on their website. They could put it in any of our wonderful publications that are still left. Unfortunately, two years ago, my newspaper folded in our little Valley community, but we are certainly not trying to harm journalism in any way. I am a former journalist. But we want to make sure that the towns are able to save money while still informing the public of the necessity of these meetings and these notices. So, I move adoption of the bill, and I hope it's enthusiastic. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. We have been debating this for quite some time, and I think we came to some compromise this year in regards to leaving it in the bill that the towns still have the option in which to publish the notice or an abridged notice into the newspaper. Being a creator of a local newspaper 10 years ago that's actually thriving, one of the things that we did was the town's municipal legal notices help the paper stay alive and stay afloat because it's a free newspaper that goes everywhere in our town. And really what the legal notices do is you want to make sure that everybody in town sees that notice. So, there are times where people still won't be able to see the online on the websites, whichever website they choose. But at least in this bill, we've left it where the notices can be not only on websites, but they can also do whatever they choose to do in the local newspaper as well. So, that makes sure that ultimately, the job of our municipal governments is to make sure that everyone knows what's going on in the towns. I do have one question, through you.

Is this a mandate?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Technically, I believe that you could call it a mandate because we are saying to the towns that instead of posting on newspapers, we are requiring you to post on your town website. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the proponent of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. I have the privilege and honor to serve in my local municipal government. And I know that through the mayor's office in the City of Danbury and throughout the departments in the City of Danbury, we are spending close to if not over $100,000 a year in public notices. And while I agree that folks need to have the information in front of them, it has to be accessible and that residents should have all the means in which to read about what's going on in their local government, our local publication of our newspaper has dwindled down to about 1,000 subscribers per day. And their busiest day, which is a Sunday, where you get most or all of the information that you want to get, including coupons and flyers, it's 1,116 subscribers for the City of Danbury, a city of nearly 90,000 residents. And I would venture to say that we have more foot traffic on our websites than we would in that publication on a Sunday. So, in a time when costs are rising. Health care, for instance, in the City of Danbury, has risen this year alone by 7%. We know other communities have gone up double that. Having had the privilege of going through the budget process and being somewhat aware of what is going on through our municipal budgets, I know that every dollar that we can save our municipalities goes a long way. And especially in the City of Danbury, $100,000 equates to so much that we could be doing for our residents. It's important that people are informed. It's important that people get the information as easily as possible. And I can't see any other better way than being able to post it online where we actually have more traffic of folks going into and looking for information than we actually do in the local publication. So, I rise in strong support, and I hope that folks in the room here will vote in support as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. I find this makes local government less transparent, more opaque, hides things like zoning commission meetings and decisions that will no longer be published. I do read the legals every day in my local newspaper. I get it delivered every day. I think there are better ways of dealing with this. I am pleased this doesn't cover the probate courts because probate courts dealing with estates, but also the emancipation of children, when they publish a notice that says one of the parents is being notified that they've abandoned their child, that's a very good thing to continue to do. So, I'm grateful for that. But I just can't support making government more opaque. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise, I have a couple of questions to the proponent of the bill, if I may.

Thank you. Current law right now requires municipalities to post their legal notices in the newspaper. This bill, if I understand correctly, would also require them to post it on their website. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Removes the requirement for newspapers, but it adds the requirement that they be on the town's website, which the question about the mandate, this is actually the opposite of an unfunded mandate. It's actually saving the town money. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, if a town decided, you know what, I don't want to put it in my local newspaper, I want to just put it on my website. Are they able to do that through this bill, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you. So, here's the issue that I have with that. And many of you may not know this, but I actually own a newspaper in my town. And I actually publish this newspaper once a month. Now, my town doesn't put public notices in my newspaper, maybe once a year for a budget, because the timing is wrong. But what I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is when someone in my town -- it goes to every home and business in my town. When someone in my town, or especially a senior citizen does not receive my newspaper, my phone is ringing. And this is my concern with municipalities not being able to publish in their main newspapers, because seniors rely on their newspapers. Senior citizens are not online every day looking to see what notifications they have, Mr. Speaker. I take my husband, for example. He loves reading his newspaper. He loves to hold it. He would not be one to go online to see, let me see what the notices are. When it's no longer in your local newspaper or a major publication, it's out of sight, out of mind and transparency goes out the window. That is my biggest concern. I can assure you that it does cost a lot of money for these towns to advertise their public notices in their paper. And I am all for saving our towns money. But Mr. Speaker, transparency is far more important. It's part of doing business. That's why you pay taxes to your town. You're paying taxes for a lot of other things, for fire and schooling and so forth. But you're also paying taxes because you want transparency with your town. And this bill dilutes the transparency. Through you, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee, if you wouldn't mind, on lines 8 of the amendment that you had called on there, can you just reiterate exactly what that means, what you changed in there, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. We wanted to ensure that there is a physical copy, and we were actually made aware that when these notices are posted, often a printed physical copy is kept in order to not end up, the town end up getting sued, that sort of thing. And so, we're making sure that this copy would be accompanied by an affidavit signed and sworn by the individual required to post the notice. So, initially, we had thought that that would be like the town clerk to do that. But then apparently, we were told that depending on the municipality, different people are in charge of posting these notices. So, we wanted to make it as flexible as possible that the person who is responsible for posting the notice is able to keep track of that notice in a printed form. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. So, currently, right now, can a town that also by law they're required to publish in their newspaper, can they also put that information on their website currently? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe they can. And part of the challenge with the newspapers currently is that a lot of newspapers have gone online. They're not in a printed form anymore. It's great when they are. But there are circulation numbers that are actually tied to the legality of those notices. We actually had a case of, they called it the Fenwick case. They pushed it back to us to ensure that we are actually meeting and making the decision on these circulation numbers. I believe that currently, many towns and cities are actually operating outside of the law because, as we heard from one of our colleagues today, the circulation of a lot of these papers is so low that it's not really meeting the noticing requirements. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. But currently, if I'm understanding correctly, a town right now is required to publish it in their newspaper. They can without law being put in. They can also publish it on their website. They're not violating any law if they did both. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

That is correct. But what we are saying in this bill is we are not going to require you to publish it in the newspaper at great expense. We are going to require you instead to put it on your town website. Whereas now the town has the option to put it on their website, we're requiring it to be on the town website. And now they have the option of putting it in a newspaper online or otherwise. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, our chairman of the committee actually talked about circulation. I was wondering, through this bill, how does one determine that a town's website is getting far more views, clicks, unique visitors, and so forth, more so than the circulation of the newspapers. Because we know it's going to the home, right? You know the circulation of it. Whether somebody's reading it or not is one thing. How does one determine, or a town determine that that circulation is going to their website, through you?

The bill is silent on that because it doesn't require a certain number of circulation. But I would also say it's one thing to have circulation numbers for printed newspapers. But, unfortunately, it's very difficult to get circulation numbers for online papers where a lot of these notices are currently residing. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, that argument to me doesn't make any sense because the argument before was that circulation is down for local newspapers. But yet, we have no way of tracking a town's website. How many clicks they're getting, how many people follow them, how many users there are, how many unique users there are. On a daily basis, we have no way of tracking, or the towns, of how much that is. So, the argument that circulation is going down on newspapers, to me, doesn't make any sense if you can't prove that the website is getting just as much. And I was wondering, is there anything at all that's going to mandate these towns track their usage on their website, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. We certainly try to not give any more mandates on the towns than we absolutely have to. This bill does not speak of circulation because we are removing it, and circulation has traditionally applied to newspapers. Therefore, the bill is silent on that. And I'm sure that you could probably ask your towns, if you so chose, to see what their numbers are in terms of clicks and where people are clicking because I'm sure that data exists, but we are not going to require it. Through you.

Thank you for that answer. I have a lot of concerns with this only because I'm concerned about our seniors and our transparency. And not only our seniors. There's a lot of people that are maybe not internet savvy. When you see those local notices in the paper, it's in front of you every single day. These big newspapers that publish every single day, you see it every single day. When those are no longer in there, because I assure you, and I would almost guarantee that a town is going to say, "We're going to save a lot of money. We're not going to put it in the newspaper anymore, we're going to just put it on our website." And there you have it. Out of sight, out of mind. And people in the town will not know what's going on unless they're thinking of it on a daily basis, I have to go to the town website to see what notices there are. It really is a lack of transparency. And I'm telling you from experience, from owning a newspaper, that senior citizens, even the younger people maybe within my age group, I'm not going to call myself a senior, but they're looking at the newspaper. I don't believe our technology is there yet where you have everybody online. I think this is a big problem, and I get -- listen, I am all for towns saving money. I would be the first one up here to say I don't like mandates on towns, and I want to save the towns money because in the end, it saves the taxpayers money. But as far as I'm concerned, this is just a service. This is part of doing business. This is part of communicating with your constituents and the people of your town who are paying the taxes. I'm just curious, through you, Mr. Speaker, if a town no longer publishes these notices in their paper and it's only going on their website -- And I'm assuming, through you, Mr. Speaker, can they do it not only on their website because they can put it in other areas as well online, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. We clarify that in the amendment that they can put it on any website they so choose. They also have the option of hanging a notice in town hall like they normally do. They also have the option of, say, in the case of referendums or other votes, they can put out sandwich boards like they do in my town. And also I would say, I believe the majority of towns have email listservs, so there are a significant number of ways to notify constituents. I also would just add a cute little quick antidote that my grandfather lived to nearly 100. We got him on iPad at 80, and he was getting his news daily on his iPad. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. And that's a great story. But I don't know if someone, are they going to go online? Are they going to even know, a senior citizen? Not a real senior but somebody who's not really, I'm going to say, internet savvy, regardless of age, are they going to know where to find those public notices? Do they know what the website address is of that town? They got to go online and do a search for Google and google or whatever to see a town's website. And they may click something else. It's very frustrating for them. I don't see this as a savings for a town. Actually, I feel that it may be even a bigger headache because I think that people will complain. Through you, Mr. Speaker, through this bill, is there a requirement for the town to notify their residents that they will no longer be publishing in their local newspaper, and that they're only going to be finding their notices online? Because it is my opinion, and I could be wrong, but I don't think so, that most of these towns will bypass the transparency that they're giving in their local newspapers, and they will be doing it online to save a buck. But is there any requirement, through you, Mr. Speaker, that they notify their residents they are no longer putting public notices in the newspaper, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is no requirement, but there is also nothing preventing them from doing so via email, mail, or carrier pigeon. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, technically, a town could just bypass that and say I'm no longer publishing this in my local newspaper and not notify their residents, and they just start putting it on their website instead, based on this bill. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you. Yes.

Thank you. I don't really have any more questions, Mr. Speaker. But again, like I said, I do own a newspaper, and I know the people in my town. And I'm telling you, when they are not getting that, they are calling. I get the town wants to save money, and I totally support that. But what I support more, and to me what is more important in government, is transparency. And when these people can no longer go and grab something, get the newspaper, look at their daily notices. There's people that absolutely, every single day, that's what they look for. I mean, there's bidding processes in there if you want to bid on something. Would that also only be on -- I guess I do have another question, through you, Mr. Speaker. I get public notices. But when a town has a bid out, would that also be something they can just post on their website, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Anything that is currently required to be noticed in a newspaper would be required to be noticed on the town's website instead. So, if that is the current requirement, then yes, it would be required to be on the town's website.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I guess I'm not done with my questioning. And I'm just curious, what happens when someone does not have an internet? They don't subscribe, they don't have internet. We have people in the state that don't have internet. They have really bad service. They can't connect. How would those people be able to get those notices if they were only online, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, they could see notices posted inside the town hall in a bulletin board, or they could go to their local library and ask a friendly librarian to help them access the internet. Through you.

Thank you. So, yes, they can go to their local library, they can go to their town hall. I'm thinking someone who is disabled and is unable to do that. They can't get to the library. They can't get to town hall. Someone who's disabled may not have the ability to go online. And I'm wondering how we address that issue if a town is only posting their notices on their website, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the bill is silent on people with disabilities.

Thank you. So, again, we're disenfranchising disabled because a lot of them can't get to the town, can't get to the library. Maybe they don't have internet. Our elderly, who maybe they're not as fluent in the internet. I think a lot of them are these days. But are they going to think on a daily basis to go on to town to look for those notices? I think a lot of people in town, having served on my town council, they're not really familiar with when meetings are and what's going on because it's not in front of them. So, it's out of sight, out of mind. But these newspapers provide that transparency, and it keeps awareness to the residents of the town. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this today again. I think transparency to me is above saving the town a few bucks. And I get, I'm sure some of them pay a lot of money for their public notices. But transparency, to me, and communicating with the residents of your town are far more important. I could see a big problem with this, people not knowing what's going on in their town because it's only posted on their website. And I think that's going to cause a bigger problem. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the chairman for the debate. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to, make a few brief remarks. I will not be supporting this bill. I just wanted to make it clear that I do not own a newspaper, but like many of the people in this chamber and many of our constituents, I am an avid consumer of newspapers. And there's a reason for that. Newspapers provide us with information that is readily available, that is transparent, and that keeps us informed of what's going on in our towns. I'm sympathetic to the argument that has been presented that this will save towns a lot of money. But as a couple of my colleagues said previously, that shouldn't be the deciding factor. Good government costs money and good government requires that people are informed about the goings on in government in their town. And if it costs towns extra money to do that, then that's part of the price of good government. So, to me, the cost argument should probably be the least relevant here. As several of my colleagues have pointed out previously, newspapers provide transparency. They provide accessibility to information, as my good colleague just mentioned a few minutes ago. Not everyone has access to websites and computers. Not everyone feels comfortable or competent navigating websites. Even though many of us do, not all of us do. We bemoan the fact that newspapers are not as -- that there's a decline in readership in newspapers. And yet, what are we doing here today? We are proposing to give people even less of a reason to read their local newspaper because the relevant information about what's going on regarding government and zoning decisions and so forth will no longer be in the newspaper or no longer be required to be in the newspaper if this bill goes through. We bemoan the fact that there seems to be a decline in civic involvement. And I would assert that doing what we're about to do here today would even exacerbate that decline in civic involvement. People can't get involved in government if they don't know what's going on. So, I am sympathetic to the cost argument, but I don't think that it's relevant here. That's the job of government is to inform people. I will join my colleagues in opposition to this, and I hope that many colleagues will join me as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate it. And I thank the dialogue that we're having back and forth here. I've had the honor of being in this building for eight terms, and I always listen to my communities about mandates. This currently, the law prior to passage of this bill, is an unfunded mandate. We tell the towns they have to do something and they have to pay for it. It's currently an unfunded mandate. Every one of my civic leaders in my town have said, when are we going to get with the times? And when are we going to have us have the ability to use what the majority of the people are using to get their information? And the minority of the people are just getting the newspapers. Let's make sure the majority of the people are getting the information. Yes, to have the opportunity to put it online now. But none of them have said they wouldn't do that or not support that. But what we want to make sure is if on the website, that all the information, the transparency that we're asking for, everything is put online and in a timely manner so that the majority of the people in our time get the information in a time sensitive basis. Very few people read the newspaper. And I love the newspaper. I still love to grab it. I don't get it delivered. I go and grab it from my newsstand. Love still getting the black ink on my hand as I'm reading it. Don't really go to the legal notices as much as I probably should, I guess. But again, we are alleviating our towns from an unfunded mandate, which every one of us has been asked to do. I put this bill in probably 10 years ago. And it didn't go anywhere, as the good chair mentioned. Didn't go very far as we put it in. We want to be transparent. I don't think there's a town, oh, I want to hide this notification. They want to inform the towns what's going on. The last thing a town leader wants to hear is, why didn't you tell me about this? I wish I had known and get all the grief from that. We want to make sure, as a legislative body here, that we have the most current and available and transparent process getting the information out on the web through a process that is required of them to get in a timely manner. I hope we can move this along. I think that if you look at those that had submitted testimony, they would like to help our towns save some money so that our towns can invest that in other necessary needs for their community. So, I stand in strong support of this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the bill. When we had COVID in Wallingford, I used to have to work with the seniors on their paperwork to get benefits, and there was a certain percentage of them, maybe 15, 20% who did not use computers. And I would take them with my car and we'd go park outside of a coffee shop where there was a computer so I could get online and help them fill out their forms. They did not know how to use the computer. So, what I'm worried about this bill is that there will be a subset of my population that will never see those notices, and it's a smaller group each year. They will eventually die out. But right now, they're still there. I talk to them. I know they don't look at the computer. And on their behalf, I think I have to say no on this. Eventually, this problem will go away, but it's not ready yet. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my good friend from Wallingford and my good friend from the 80th. I don't see any need for this. There are seniors that will be disenfranchised. My mom passed away a couple years ago, but she didn't drive. And there's many people like my mother that did not drive, and they love the newspaper every day. And I don't -- I have a question for the good chair of Planning and Development. How much money are we talking about at the cost of people losing their right for information? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's dependent on the towns. There's obviously many legal notices. I've heard numbers around $100,000. I've heard numbers around $50,000. It depends on the town and how many notices they're sending out and which paper they're choosing to put it in. I will say, to some of the comments that we've been hearing, part of the challenges in terms of actually informing people is that we have private equity that has come in to buy up a lot of these newspapers. You know, one of my colleagues that I share the Farmington Valley with, we already had a newspaper die because of the cost of the paper, because of lack of advertising. And at the time, when they existed, we were all still advertising actually in that paper. So, I think that that's the challenge is the cost is all over the place. And it also includes organizations like our town committees, our partisan town committees. You know, they also have expenses around this as well. So, it really does depend on where you're placing your notices. But again, we're not really getting to the circulation, which is the current law, which means we are living outside of the current law. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that. In the district I represent, there's a couple local papers, and it's very inexpensive. But at the end of the day, it's worked for all these years. Towns were able to pay for this. But now we're going to disenfranchise potentially a population of our electorate, and that they should not be disenfranchised. I don't think anybody should be dis -- just like the bill earlier. The language should have just said every child should have an education through the state constitution. That should have been the simple language. And in this case, every person should have the opportunity to see those notices. And I look back at my mom and people like her, they would never see those notices. She didn't own a computer. She didn't know how to use a computer. And to the good Representative in Wallingford, she's right. Unfortunately, down the road, there are people that will -- everyone will have a computer and people will have these notices. But for now, I think the towns are smart enough to make their decision to get the notices out to their public. They've been doing it for since -- Ben Franklin has been putting it notices out 250 years ago to the public, and that's the way to do it. And in future, things will change, yes. But for now, let people have the right, as their first amendment and their right as an American, to read their publications in the local paper. So, I do not support this. I think it's foolish at this point. Initially, I was going to support it. But the more I thought about it, it makes no sense because people are going to be disenfranchised. So, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thanks to the good chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, just some comments and maybe some questions. So, I challenge anyone in this room or wherever to see if they are any more opposed to this bill than I am. I highly doubt it, and I'm going to explain why. It's not personal. it's not anything having to do really with this bill itself. My objection to this bill is due to the precedent it sets, and the potential for a slippery slope where we use this bill as a reference point and as an example to conduct other business in this fashion where we go to this online only format, digital only format. Just the sound of that sort of phrase makes me cringe, honestly. And I'm a millennial. I'm a younger guy. I'm used to digital and electronic and online only. A lot of the things that we do in this building are online only. I don't like to have my bills printed and in paper form to read. I'd prefer to view them through a screen. However, there are still many, many people who prefer the hard copy, the physical copy. As a matter of fact, I've actually put in bills that do the exact opposite of what this bill is trying to accomplish. Go in the complete opposite direction and try to encourage going back to a paper format way of doing things because there are still so many people that do not prefer, and not even prefer, but that just cannot function in a digital only world. And I've got news for anyone that is having a hard time thinking of who those people could be. Those are our parents, our grandparents, our neighbors. They walk amongst us, okay? It's not fair to a very large portion of our society that has been trained and conditioned and is used to one particular way of doing something. And then just sweeping that something from underneath their feet with no warning. It's not a matter of choice. It's not a matter of preference. Yes, for me, I could say that I prefer one versus the other and that I can adapt or comply to the other thing that I do not prefer. But for some people, it's not a choice. Some people don't have access to a computer. Some people don't have access to the internet. Or even if they do, they need assistance when going on the internet and how to navigate the complex digital world that we live in. So, why add this extra difficulty to those people's lives? We're talking about a 75-year-old grandma, an 80-year-old grandfather who's already having trouble adapting themselves in this digital world that we live in. When you go to the bank, when you go to the doctor's office, when you go to order a cheeseburger at McDonald's, they've taken out all the employees now and you're interacting with kiosks. Now, yes, I understand that this day will probably come where we have robots doing everything and computers giving us commands, but let's -- why are we encouraging it? Why don't we try to slow that hellish dystopian nightmare down? But are actively encouraging it with bills that remove the physical world, the real world, and push us towards that digital only world. It doesn't sound right to me. You know, and I'll give you some concrete examples. I've had many constituents who have had to go to the doctors, to urgent care, and they won't even be seen. They won't even be given service unless they have a smartphone and can scan a damn QR code to upload their information into that hospital's or that healthcare clinic system. What kind of a world is that? Somebody's coming in and looking for health, you know, for medical care, and they have to go through an algorithm and an online application where you get codes sent to you and you have to reply back with a code. Every single one of you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is not foreign to any one of us. And I know that in the privacy of our own thoughts, we think we have the exact same thoughts. Why do things have to be so damn complicated these days? And I really, really am speaking from the heart here. These are not, by any means, measured words. We see it so often, you know? Senior citizens going to the bank or going to some sort of establishment that they have to go. You have to go to the bank. You have to go to the doctors. You have to go to the grocery store. These aren't things that we do out of want. These are things that we need to do. These are institutions that we need in our lives. And you see so many times, scan the QR code. "Scan the QR code, sir. We do that online only, ma'am. Sorry sir, we no longer have this, you know, antiquated option that you seek." And oftentimes, these customers, patients, patrons, they don't know what to do. They stand there like a deer in headlights not knowing what to do because they don't even know what you're talking about, much less know how to do what you're talking about sometimes. Most senior citizens are not going to know what a QR code is, okay? Most senior citizens are not going to know how to get onto the city website and navigate through the various tabs and try to find where the legal notices are posted. That's just not going to happen. We know that in reality, you know, very few people have the ability to do that honestly. But everybody, anyone has the ability to go open up a newspaper and go to the legal section of that newspaper and see, you know, if there's anything that they should be made aware of. And quite frankly, the people that will do that are the senior citizens. We have statistics that could prove that, you know? Senior citizens are more likely to vote. Senior citizens are more likely to use a newspaper. So, the people that would most adversely get affected by this are the senior citizens. We know this. I can bet you my life on that. And somebody that knows how to use the computer would know how to navigate through all these complex tabs on the city website, they probably don't care to look up legal notices. We know these things. This is not -- you know, we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. What we need to be focused on is how to make the lives of those that are the most vulnerable in our society easier. We just passed a bill a couple bills ago that looked to do that and happily voted for it. What we need to do is we need to provide an option for those that are vulnerable. Whether senior citizens, people with developmental or intellectual disabilities, people that have a harder life than the average person. We need to help them out, and we don't help them out by saying scan QR codes while someone is holding their head in pain or their arm in pain and trying to get medical attention. That's not how we help people out. We don't help them out by saying go to www.whatever.com, sign up here and get a code here and put it there and then send it back to me and then, you know, we'll give you a confirmation email, and you let us know what that secret password is. I'm sick of it. Honestly, I'm sick of it. And I grew up in this world really. But I do remember a time when things made sense and people had common sense. Things would get published in the newspaper, and elderly folks would get treated with respect, and would be provided the accommodations that they needed to conduct business or get whatever they need. We are really just, you know, entering this brave new world here of, the word that's in my head is dystopian, a dystopia. We are heading towards a dystopia where everything is going to be automated. Everything is going to be electronic. It sounds crazy. It sounds like science fiction. But I guarantee you, some of the stuff that we have today that we interact with today, if you had told somebody about this stuff that we have today, smartphones and computers and all this stuff 50 years ago, they would have thought you were nuts. We talk all the time about founding fathers and their intent when they wrote the constitution. And could they have predicted, or could they have foreseen the modern-day problems and conditions that we face today. And as much as I would like to think that they were very smart individuals, probably much smarter than all of us here in this room, they didn't know everything. Nobody knows everything, and you can't always predict the future. But we are. We are seeing the landscape that our technology has created. Social media, for example, another online invention, online-only invention. What is social media? Has anybody ever thought about what that term means? Social media. Media, right? Like a medium, something that connects things. Social, right? Human-to-human connection. Well, why do we need social media to be social? That's a modern-day creation. It's not a thing that even existed 30 years ago. Social media 30 years ago was you get out of your house, you go walk on the street, you go play with your -- you know, if you're a kid, you're playing with other kids in the neighborhood. If you're an adult, you're doing whatever. That was social media. We didn't need the computer to be social with each other. But here we are. We have this monstrosity called social media. And, yes, I do call it a monstrosity because we're all freaking addicted to it. And it really has caused some very detrimental consequences amongst our youth. Depression, anxiety, suicide, all directly linked to and attributable to social media, because it's not real. Social media is not real. It's a shell of what is real. Real is real. Real is what we are experiencing right now, talking to each other. This is the real world. And the more we push for policies and laws, and the more we head in the general direction of disassociating ourselves from each other and from reality, the worse we're going to be off as a society. Yes, this bill is benign. It's not the end of the world if this bill passes. But think about the precedent that it sets. We have now moved something that traditionally for hundreds of years has been in the real world, in paper format, in the real world, in newspapers, and now we have moved it to this fake virtual world. Essentially, it doesn't exist. What we're doing here is we're moving something into a realm that really doesn't exist. And the real world implications of that are that many people are going to be adversely affected by this change. They won't see the notices. There's a reason why people will seek notices in the newspaper, legal notices in the newspaper. People must have a reason for that, for seeking that. If this bill passes today, there's going to be a lot of people that aren't going to know that it passed, and they're going to look for those legal notices in the newspaper. And guess what? They're not going to find them after October 1st or July 1st, whenever this bill would become law. You think they're going to know? You think there's enough people watching CTN right now to see this debate and know that we're on the cusp of removing legal notices from newspapers? No. Probably not. I just checked. I was on my computer, watching session from my computer. There was eight people that were viewing it. So, the fact of the matter is this world that we're creating, this digital world that we're creating, it is powerful but it's not all encompassing. Not everyone has bought in. Not everyone is a part of it. And we need to think about those people. We need to think about those people and how to make their lives easier, not harder. Fact of the matter is your average senior citizen enjoys picking up a newspaper early in the morning and reading it. Heck, it doesn't even need to be a senior citizen. We just had a few younger legislators tell us about their experiences with newspapers and how much they enjoy holding the news, a physical copy of the news. A lot of people still live their lives that way. This really cuts to the fabric of our society, of our culture. Again, I can't escape that sort of component of this broader argument. That whether this bill passes or not, it would be a direct blow at the way our society has functioned for so many years and has worked really well, has worked really well. Institutions that we have here in the United States that are unique to us have worked really well. That's why this country has flourished for so long as it has. But as we're seeing, it kind of looks like it's coming apart. And I know this isn't going to change that whether this bill passes or not, but the thinking, the mentality that we are adopting of making things easier, making things more accessible, making things more available. But at what cost? At what cost? You know, some people are at a point in their lives where all they have to look forward to maybe is that newspaper that they pick up at their local gas station or convenience store and the two-minute conversation that they're going to have with the gas station clerk, and then the little coffee appointment with a friend. By this bill passing and us moving in the direction of removing things from the physical world and putting them in the digital world, we are contributing to making that person's life more difficult. And people like that are a lot of them, and we know a lot of people like that. We are eroding the culture of this great country by heading in this direction. And I cannot, in good conscience, support something like that. Not only can I not support it, but it's my duty to stand up and fight against it because it is really that bad. The situation out there really is that bad with kids' mental health and just everybody's mental health. And the more we move away from interacting with each other, with having to leave our house and go pick something up, the worse we're going to be off, the worse we're going to be off. So, whether this bill passes or not, you know, whatever. But we are heading, we're taking another step in the wrong direction. And I, as I have expressed, am vehemently against that and would strongly urge my colleagues to vote this down. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Happy Senior Day to everyone. I'm here to speak in favor of this bill, but also somewhat to support our seniors. In my town, we do have a daily newspaper and it, like the Danbury paper, has low circulation. And I'm sure there are many folks that still enjoy or try to enjoy that paper. My husband runs an online Bristol newspaper. It's online only, but I want to tell you that some of his strongest and most engaged viewers online are our seniors. They contact him if they do have any issues with getting to the Bristol edition online. I agree with folks that have said our seniors are more engaged portion of our population. They do vote more. They are engaged. They do care, and they find that information. And in my husband's newspaper, he does publish city meetings, sometimes agendas or links to agendas, and he gets that information from the city's website. And sometimes it's updated to cancel a meeting or to do a special meeting, and he's able to update that in real time. Again, I'm going to be a senior in less than two months, and I am a little offended by folks saying I don't know what a QR code is. I'm not saying I'm a technology expert, but at my husband's paper, they spend hours and hours updating that website and making it as user friendly as they possibly can. And I think the overall reason for this bill is to save our municipalities the funds. And again, in my town, very low circulation for a printed newspaper, which is the one that gets the legal notices from our town. The online paper my husband runs does not get notices. But they have more information about city meetings there than the paper newspaper. So, again, I'm here trying to support our seniors and acknowledging that when they want information, they are able to get it. Thank you.

Thank you. Some comments and some questions. We've heard a lot about some of the towns being nonconforming in what they are doing as far as posting in papers as it is, that the circulation may not really be what it should be for them to be doing so. Through you, Mr. Speaker, why then would it be less important to know how many people actually access a website that this would be turning to instead of a newspaper? And yet we are concerned on the flip side that the newspapers are not getting the subscribers that should be -- I'm a little confused. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. And I really appreciate the question because I think you're not the only one who's having some confusion. So, the way the current law stands, there is a circulation requirement tied to the current law. In fact, we have actually had cases turned over, like zoning decisions turned over in the court because a town noticed in a certain paper. The court found that that didn't have the right amount of circulation. So, currently, we are concerned with the fact that there is not enough circulation because that is what our current law says. What we are doing here is we are removing the circulation piece and saying that we are asking the towns to take on having the notice for their information on the town website where frankly, I would think once people get used to it, it actually kind of makes more sense to look for it there as opposed to flipping through an entire newspaper, flipping through multiple town notices. You know that you're looking directly at what your town needs on that site. So, that's the confusion is that there is currently in law a circulation number. You know, it has to be substantial. We are living outside of that portion of the law with the way we are executing. And we want to make sure that we are -- you know, that's a liability, frankly, for the towns if they're putting it into a newspaper. And they can be sued, and they have been. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. There presently is no conforming template for all of these municipalities in which they would display their website, and some may be easy to use, some may be fairly difficult to use. Is that at all a concern in this bill, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, that is why in the bill we've requested it be placed in a prominent site. I believe it would be an unfunded mandate to go any further than that to say that towns have to replicate an exact site. I mean, I can only imagine the discussion that we would have and the testimony from our organizations that represent our towns that would say, oh, now you're requiring them to have identical websites across the state. I just think it would be an enormous lift financially if we required that. But we are asking and requesting in the bill that they place it in a prominent website. I liken it to when you go to a nonprofit's website and the donate button is near the top. Through you, Madam Speaker.

And through you, Madam Speaker. Having been in municipal government for a very long time now, there are many people that, as it is, feels that they are not really given the opportunity in foreclosures, in auctions, in bids. All of these things come into play, I believe, with these notices. And my concern is that in municipal websites that are oftentimes not very robust, that these will then get hidden in departments that only somebody who really knows where to look would be able to find them, thus disenfranchising many of the people that would have engaged otherwise if they had seen this notice in a newspaper. Are there any safeguards to prevent this from happening? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I don't think there's safeguards now. I think that just as you said, they often miss notices. I'm sure that it happens quite often even with newspapers. I can't speak for other towns, but I do hear quite often in my town the frustration that, well, I didn't know this was happening, or there weren't enough sandwich boards on the highway, or there weren't -- if you're not signing want to up for emails, democracy is a participatory sport. If you really want to be able to get this information, it's not dissimilar from the way I think that we do things at the CGA. We do not notice our public hearings in a newspaper. We do have requirements around how we notice our public meetings, our public hearings, our committee meetings. Everything that transpires in this building, I believe, does not require a notice in a newspaper anywhere other than on our state website. So I think it's akin to that. And I would say even though I appreciate how our website is run, and certainly I know people work hard on it, it's a little difficult to navigate. So I think that we're all just Going to have to learn a little bit new here. Through you, Madam Speaker.

And through you, Madam Speaker, I will just finish with a couple of comments. I do believe that this would make it very difficult for those with disabilities to access the information, especially for those who in our communities, do not have computers, and do not have access to get to libraries enabled to get to a computer screen and look these things up. I also am concerned that with the individual towns and municipalities, that there will be great variances in how this is done unlike a newspaper where everything is done in one way, that there will perhaps not be that kind of access that they would otherwise have within the notices in a newspaper. So for those reasons, I will not be able to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You look wonderful up there. Thank you.

I rise with one question for the good chairwoman, and just a couple comments on this bill and some of the issues that were raised today. I know that the amendment that we adopted on this bill did have a change in line 16 that inserted language saying on one or more Internet websites selected by such municipality. And I'd like to ask the dear chairwoman a question in regards to that language. If that is up to the municipality, could that be assumed that that could also be a local online news site? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it certainly could, and we encourage it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you to the good chairwoman. I wanted to ask that directly because I think one of the issues that we're raising today is the true value of our access to local news, and also our access and support of having actual local journalists. We know that in our work in this building that we rely on local news and coverage of our work in order for our constituents not only to understand what we're doing here, but also to hold us accountable for what we're doing here or at the local level. I have deep concerns about the loss of local journalism in our state of Connecticut. It's why I've worked with several other colleagues to pursue efforts to dedicate some of our state advertising dollars to local news, to pursue fellowships to develop more journalists in our future, and also to support tax credits to support journalists. Because here in the state of Connecticut, we now rank 37th out of 50 states for the number of local journalists. But this bill, in moving forward, us to face our current, present standing of how folks access their news and ensure that we're also supporting what's needed for true support of local news moving forward, I think we have to come to terms with where we are and how we can best make sure that information is getting to our constituents. And by the inclusion in this bill and in the amendment of the online news sources, which are what many of our newspapers have transitioned to, this is recognizing that those sources are ones that our residents rely on. And I hope that with passage of this bill and attention to this issue of the importance of local news, we can do things that actually will make a difference in supporting more local journalists and also make sure that our constituents stay well informed. So thank you to the good chairwoman for her work on this, and thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good afternoon. One quick question to the proponent of the bill, if I may.

Representative Kavros DeGraw?

Representative Zullo.

Thank you very much, Representative, for both your statements and also your grandpa jokes. Representative Meskers.

Thank you very much, Representative. And now for the ranking member of the Committee on Children. Representative Dauphinais.

You're very welcome.

Thank you very much, Madam. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. Representative Hoxha of the 78th, for what purpose do you rise?

Hoxha in the negative, please. Representative Blumenthal, the 147th, for what purpose do you rise?

Thank you. Blumenthal in the negative. And will the Clerk please take a tally? Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes as amended. (gavel) Is there any business on the Clerk's desk?

The majority leader, Representative Rojas.

So ordered. Will the Clerk please call calendar 262?

Representative Steinberg.

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Marra of the 141st, you have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as -- will you remark further on the bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats. The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar 216?

Representative Steinberg of the 136th, you have the floor, sir.

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, you have the floor.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 3857, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A?

Representative seeks leave to the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Hearing none, Representative Steinberg, you may proceed with the summarization.

Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark further on the amendment? Can I interest everyone in a voice vote? Any objection? Hearing none, I'll try your minds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Everybody's talking about nuclear. It is part of our future, and as I imagine, for much of the country. As we speak, Dominion, the owner of Millstone, is probably in negotiations with Connecticut and other states about renewing. We've also passed legislation enabling municipalities to look at the possibility of a nuclear facility in their communities. This bill is about jobs, making sure that we have the right and adequate number of employees who are skilled in various aspects of nuclear construction and management so that, should we get to that point, we're in a position to take advantage. We imagine going forward with all the talk about nuclear, there'll be a lot of competition for expertise, and we want to be out front and make sure that we have the smart people working on it who can help us figure out a path to securing the kind of employees we'll need to make nuclear reality in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. We started the committee process this year with the nuclear bill really just being a dummy bill. And in this case, I really did not feel like it was a "dummy bill." We knew that after SB 4 last year, we have some momentum on looking for expanding nuclear here in the ISO region. So this is really just a continuation on the work that we have already done in the energy committee and making sure that as we move forward, we have workforce development, and we are looking ahead. So even though at the very beginning, we weren't quite sure what we would need in this bill, we had faith with the committee process that if there was a need, we needed to be nimble. We want to be ready to move forward when and if we have the ability to move forward with nuclear. So I am in strong support of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

House Bill 5336 as amended by House A: Total Number Voting 144 Necessary for Adoption 73 Those voting Yea 143 Those voting Nay 1 Those absent and not voting 7

On Page 2 Calendar 47, House Bill Number 5266, An Act Concerning Social Work Licensure. Favorable report of Public Health.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's fair report and passage of the bill.

Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 3905. I ask that the amendment be called, and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 3905, offered by Representative McCarthy-Vahey with Representative Klarides- Ditria.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The amendment before us is a strike-all amendment that will pause rather than eliminate the examination requirement for the LMSW, the Licensed Master of Social Work Program. That will go through January or -- excuse me. July 1st, 2029. The commissioner of public health will need to, on January 1st, 2029, notify institutions of higher education of that end date. And I move adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I'll make my comments once the amendment is voted on.

Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. And the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Klarides-Ditria.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Carpino of the 32nd, you have the floor, ma'am.

Please proceed.

Representative McCarthy-Vahey.

Representative Carpino.

Representative McCarthy-Vahey.

Representative Carpino.

Thank you, Representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Will your remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will the staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will members take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Representative Piscopo of the 76th.

Thank you, Representative. Our distinguished majority leader, Representative Rojas.

The chamber will stand at ease now. The chamber will recess until subject to the call of the House. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 244?

Representative Boyd from the 50th District, you have the floor, sir.

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Boyd, you have the floor, sir.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 3940, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.

Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize as their objection to summarization. Hearing none, Representative Boyd, you may proceed with the summarization.

Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Howard of the 43rd District, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, is there objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot of discussion around building code that's been going on for a long time. The process to adopt a code is a lengthy process that goes to the regulation review. We almost never adopt a code on the time schedule that we are supposed to adopt a code. A number of our builders and folks that are in the industry are asking for a longer period of time. So once they adopt and learn a new code and implement it, that we're not almost immediately changing. That can be problematic through the cycle. We're hoping to move the needle, begin some discussions, and be able to have some more certainty in this part of it. So, certainly, it's not something that every side wants, but every side does get a little something to move us forward. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Speaker. I concur with the good chairman's comments. And I will say that this again, and I'm not even joking around it. This actually exemplifies what we do in this committee every single day, and why the committee functions the way that it does. We take input from all sides. We sit down. We bring them to the table and try to find something that works. What we did really focus on this year, there's a lot of talk about affordability. There's a lot of talk about housing crisis. We've been talking about that for several years. This does seek to address that issue. When it comes to housing and affordability, for our contractors, our builders, the individuals in this state who produce housing and build things for us, and for our citizens to live in, it does make it a little bit easier. And as the chairman said, the last section, which I think is probably the most notable, is that we will hear back from interested parties to see how we can move forward to keep our contractors, our fire code, our building code, everything moving in the right direction. For that reason, I think it's a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to give credit to the Public Safety Committee and the leadership of this house that they sat down and collaborated with those that are really affected by that. And that's, first of all, the home builders and second of all, people trying to buy the homes. One of the things that home builders have been trying to focus on is predictability. And when the code cycles change and the additional cost to build a new home goes up, we've been talking about affordability in this building for a long time. And here's an area where a builder can build a safe and affordable home without knowing that a code change is going to happen mid-subdivision. And all of a sudden, that changes, and they have to say, well, I can't no longer sell you that home now because the new codes have changed, and now we're adding $20 to the house. And that is what's happened in the past. So now if they have a longer time frame to adopt the codes, understand what they have to do, and then move forward, I think that is what the home voters are looking for. I think this delivers on it. Again, each group gave a little, and that's what compromise is about. So I thank the work of the committee on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

House Bill 5401 as amended by House A: Total Number Voting 144 Necessary for Adoption 73 Those voting Yea 144 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 7

On Page 17 Calendar 217, substitute for House Bill Number 5391, An Act Concerning the Enforcement of Zoning Regulations. Favorable report of Planning and Development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon. Good to see you. I move for acceptance of the committee's joint favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you so much. This bill is one of those that sometimes we find unusual, but we're trying to improve some antiquated zoning enforcement regulations, particularly for the municipalities who are considered special act towns, and therefore have to basically get permission from us in order to be able to do what they do. So many urban municipalities like New Haven are subject to those special acts, and they would like to be able to engage in fining the same way that other towns are able to engage in fining around violations of zoning regulations. So this bill seeks to allow them to just be equal with the other towns that are already able to do this. And so I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, a question to the proponent of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you, this is just basically saying that most towns are running their zoning through statute. And this is one particular town in the state of Connecticut that has a special act. They're not able to do the zoning and are authorizing their zoning and regulate their zoning through differently than the rest of the municipalities do. So all we're trying to do is make it so it's acceptable that they can do it exactly the same way as every other town out there. Is that true? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Well, and it's a fair thing to do, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

House Bill 5391: Total Number Voting 144 Necessary for Adoption 73 Those voting Yea 144 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 7

On page 11, Calendar 142, substitute for House Bill Number 5406, An Act Concerning Various Measures Honoring the Heroism of Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces. Favorable report of the Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO --

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Foster, you have the floor, ma'am.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 3953, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.

Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there any objection to summarization? And hearing none, Representative Foster, you may proceed with the summarization.

Question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Anderson of the 62 District, you have the floor, sir, on the amendment.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Vail of the 52nd District, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule A? Representative Yaccarino of the 87th District, you have the floor, sir.

Representative Foster.

Representative Yaccarino.

Thank you, Representative. Will you rewind further on House Amendment Schedule A? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will members take your seats? Head to your portals. The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take the tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will we remark further on the underlying bill? Will we remark further on the bill? Representative Mastrofrancesco of the 80th, you have the floor, ma'am.

Representative Foster.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Foster.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Foster.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Foster.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Foster.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Foster.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Foster.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Thank you very much, Representative. Representative Poulos from the 81st District.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise with a question for the proponent of the bill.

Thank you. Can you explain why dental care is important in one's overall health?

Representative Poulos.

Representative Foster.

Representative Poulos.

Thank you very much, Representative. Representative Anderson.

You're welcome.

Please proceed.

Sure. Let's see. Representative Foster.

Representative Anderson.

Thank you, Representative. Representative DeCaprio of the 48th District.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Representative. And we owe a debt of gratitude to your father, your family, and to all who serves. So thank you very much. Representative Delany.

Thank you very much, Representative. Will you remark further? Representative Boyd of the 50th District, sir? The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Representative. Representative Foster.

Thank you very much, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will members please take your seats, and the machine will be open?

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 52?

Representative Fortier, it's very nice to see you here. I'm happy to hear your bill, ma'am. The floor is yours.

The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Fortier, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further? If not, will staff and guests please come? Representative Bolinsky.

Please proceed.

Representative Fortier.

Thank you very much. And then, through you, Madam Speaker, when an employee enters one of these agencies, to the proponent, is this not part of the initial training anyway? Are we just annualizing it with this act?

Through you, Madam Speaker, my understanding is that many facilities already do this, just ensuring that they do. Thank you, Madam.

Pardon me, Representative. Members of the House, if you would please keep conversations to a minimum or take them outside. Thank you very much. Representative Bolinsky. Go ahead, Representative.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? If not, will staff -- Representative Weir, at the last minute, down to the wire. The floor is yours, sir.

You may proceed.

Representative Fortier.

Representative Weir.

Representative Fortier.

Representative Weir.

Thank you very much. Okay. Let's try this again. Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests, please come to the Well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? And if all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce a tally?

The bill passes. (gavel)

On page 2, Calendar 46, House Bill number 5165, an act requiring an evaluation of the appointment of receiver to manage hospitals in financial distress or operational crisis. Favorable report of Public Health.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's great to see you as well. And I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 3932. I ask that the amendment be called, and I be granted the lead of the chamber to summarize.

House amendment schedule A, LCO number 3932, offered by Representative McCarthy Vahey, Senator Anwar, Representative Klarides-Ditria.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the bill is very much as the title says. We are asking the Department of Public Health to evaluate whether or not, our Attorney General should be authorized to petition the superior court, to appoint a receiver, to manage a hospital if the hospital is in financial distress or operational crisis. The amendment before us also offers the definition of that a hospital distress or financial crisis. I will say I want to thank the Connecticut Hospital Association who has helped work with us on the language of the bill and offers the fact that the financial distress is if a hospital has filed for bankruptcy or is experiencing three of the criteria listed in the amendment, and I move adoption.

I will speak after the amendment is passed.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Klarides-Ditria.

Thank you very much, Representative. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Representative Ackert.

Please proceed.

Representative McCarthy Vahey.

Representative Ackert.

You're very welcome. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the Well of the House? Will members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members, please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce tally?

The bill as amended has passed. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 71?

Representative Dathan. Good afternoon, Madam.

Thank you. Same to you.

The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Dathan, you have the floor.

Will the Clerk please call LCO Number 3954, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.

Representative Dathan.

The question before the chamber is adoption of House amendment Schedule A. Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Carney, there you are.

Representative Dathan.

Okay. Thank you very much for that, Madam Speaker. I'm just curious regarding the initial payment. If the good Chair of Government Oversight could just elaborate a little bit more about the $150,000 threshold for that. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much. And I just want to clarify with the good ranking member, he is referring to the line in Section line 54. Is that correct, Madam Speaker?

Representative Dathan.

Okay. I appreciate that. I just wanted to let my colleagues understand that part a little bit more. But with that, as the amendment does become the bill, I will have some more questions, but I do support adoption of the amendment.

Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Carney.

Representative Dathan.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And I think that the process is really important to why this bill is good because it will require folks to really explain themselves why they should be getting this money. Any issues, any risks OPM will be able to look at, will have a better idea of how these funds will get spent. So II think that part is really good, and I'm really happy that we will be more or rather several of us on the different committees will be more involved in that process. There were a couple things that I did have questions for. One is -- and this was something that we had initially proposed. I don't believe is in the bill, but will there be any way to go back to figure out what legislator or organization put in the request for the legislatively-directed fund, through you, Madam Speaker?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Because these are made during budget years, we are not binding a legislator to a future disbursement made through a budget. And also many requests that are made might be made from several, different legislators out there, not just the one. It could be a delegation or a group of people with similar causes in mind, through you.

Thank you very much for that, Madam Speaker. And one other question I had is while this will affect legislatively-directed funds, there are some branches of government that it will not impact. I believe it's the judicial branch, higher ed. And if that is correct, through you, Madam Speaker, is there a reason why they're being treated differently?

So Letter B in Section 1 states that the appropriate is excluded if it's a state agency, a political subdivision of the state. So it could be like a taxing district or a municipality. The judicial department, the legislative department, which includes OLM, and if there are other sort of higher ed disbursements that are made just because those are not part of the legislatively-directed funds. Those are through our regular appropriations process. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Okay. No. And I appreciate that answer from the good Chair. As I said, I mean, I think this is a really strong bill. It is a bill that is moving us in the right direction. It is one that, like I said, so many people were in support of. We need to have a better understanding of where some of these earmarks go, how they're being spent. At the end of the day, we all know these are taxpayer dollars that we're working with, and we want them to be used efficiently. We want the government to know where they're going, how they're being used, any risks with these organizations. So with that, I am in strong support of this legislation, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to support it. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a few questions for the proponent of the bill.

Thank you. First of all, before I have any questions, I would like to just make a comment. I've been Ranking Member of Appropriations for four years now, and I think every single year that we have put forward any kind of budget, I have asked my good Chair over there a million questions on how do earmarks get into the budget, and what is the process, and where is the public, where is the transparency, and where is the oversight to how it gets there. And it's legislative prerogative to put spending into the budget. And we have made it a priority of ours over here to really start to get some answers and some process around this. Because if it is legislative prerogative, then it should be publicly aware of how that happens, when it happens, why it's happening, who's getting it, and what they're doing. So, year after year, we've looked for some sort of transparency and accountability when it comes to earmarks in the budget. While this bill is not perfect in my opinion, I still think there's a lot that we could do. Personally, I believe that anything that gets into the budget like this should have a public hearing. I also feel like whoever is getting the money should have to submit not only their financials, but whether or not they have any relationship to anybody who is a legislator or anybody who is in any form, any of the branches of government. I feel like it should be a process where all of the legislative asks are documented and rated regardless of what party you are. And whichever ones rise to the top like cream are the ones that should get funded, and the ones who don't get asked for in a secondary year. So, if I had written this, it would look a little different. It would have a lot of these in it, but it would definitely have some strength, some strong bones put in here to ensure that we are absolutely being transparent. Some of the things that I think that are in here that are good is this OPM policy, having a policy, having the documentation put in place, all of the things that we're going to be seeing now, which we have not been able to see in the past. So, this is, to me, it's like the one small step forward and hopefully, it's something that we can continue to work on in future legislation, future legislative years to truly get to a point where we have a 100% transparency. I've said it on this floor, and I'll say it again, it's pretty bad when the federal government has a better process than we do when it comes to earmarks. When they have more transparency in how they are granting earmarks than we do, I think that's kind of bad. I like to say that we hold ourselves to a higher standard, and I'd like to see us get there. So, I'm happy with the first steps in this here. Through you, Madam Speaker, my first question is there are several areas here, mainly like the executive branch, the judicial branch, like the other legislative branches of the government, where we are not doing the same sort of scrutiny. So, my first question is can you please elaborate on why we are not including all branches of government when we're looking at putting structure and transparency around earmarks, ma'am?

Thank you so much for that question. To the good ranking member, I wanted to share that right now, this is a legislatively-directed earmark bill. This isn't about the Appropriations process. So, that sort of other agencies are all handled through the appropriations process, through you.

Thank you. And you're correct, right? So they are legislated through the Appropriations budget. All branches of the government have to come through Appropriations. But legislative earmarks occur in all of these different branches, right? I know because I have consistently been looking at the other expenses and all of the stuff that comes through this budget for the last six years, and I know that in other areas, there are legislatively-directed grants. And, again, I'm not saying that they do or do not belong in those areas. What I'm saying is why are they specifically being excluded from this entire process? Like if we see grants coming through legislative management, or the governor's office, or anything like that that are going specifically that our legislative asks, why would we not want to include them in this same transparency bill, ma'am, through you?

Well, I agree that having more transparency is ideal, and we'd love to do this. This is the first step in that whole process, and I think these are the things that raise questions to the voters of Connecticut, through you.

Thank you. I appreciate hearing that this is a first step, right? This is the start. So, I would hope that, as I said, in the next legislative session, we could continue to look at this and work at this. My next question is in regard to -- because these other agencies now are outside of this transparency process, is there anything in this bill that would prevent legislators from going to one of these other executive branches to try to get an earmark put there so they do not have to go through this process, ma'am, through you?

Can the good Ranking please, repeat the question? I missed the last bit.

Yes. Absolutely. Is there anything in this bill that would prevent -- so this bill is putting more scrutiny on legislative earmarks which wholeheartedly I'm in favor of. But because we've excluded like the executive branch, for instance, is there anything in this bill that would prevent me as a legislator from going to the governor's office or the LG's office and saying, "Hey, I'd really like to get $1 million for my pickleball court," right? So, I'm now going to the executive branch. I'm circumventing, basically, what's happening here. Is there anything that would prevent or help if a legislator goes to the executive branch, for instance, to ask for an earmark in this bill? Through you, ma'am.

Thank you very much. I'm going to refer to the good Chair in Appropriations who is much more familiar with the whole budget process.

Ah, there we go. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I know she just want to talk to me, so I had to get up.

She's used to me. So I apologize. I could not hear the question. I think you -- go ahead. Would you ask her if she could repeat that for me, please?

Thank you. Gladly. And, of course, I did just want to talk to Toni. So, this puts transparency in place that we've been asking for, right? But by excluding all of the other branches of government beyond the general fund that we have like the legislative piece, by excluding, say, the governor's office, the executive branch, is there anything in this bill that would prevent me as a legislator from trying to circumvent this process and saying, "I'm going to go to the governor's office and ask him to give me $1 million for my pickleball court because I don't want to go through here." Is there anything that prevents that in this bill, ma'am, through you?

Through you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the good gentlelady for that question. She's asked me that before. And so I'm glad to answer it. First of all, let me explain. The Judicial Department does a group of bills also, and the procedures that you see before you are pretty much the mirror image of everything that goes on in the Judicial Department. In fact, even the training program that is being implemented to help the providers that are the people that the nonprofits that want to get money, we're giving them training to understand what's necessary for you to be an entity to receive money from government in the appropriate way. The other part is legislative management is what we do for the people in this room, And those things are closed. So, nobody goes to legislative management for specific entities. And I'm trying to think in the governor's office. Well, he's the governor. He can do whatever he wants. So, through you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam, for the question.

Okay. I think that answers my question. Because they're different executive branches, we're not putting the same level of scrutiny on them, which I think noting that this is a first draft at all of this. Again, I'll be the one who will probably be pushing for let's standardize the process. Let's take the best practices that we have if we've got them in judiciary or wherever. Let's make them in everywhere. So then it's not just us here, the legislators, but it's also the Executive branch that has to go through this same sort of scrutiny and can't play favorites to get something in the budget, you know? We want this level -- this side of the aisle has been fighting for a long time to have this level of scrutiny over everything that is in the budget, right? And it is a big budget, and it's hard to keep track of all of that. So taking this language, and these processes, and then making them broad-based against all of the money that we spend only increases our transparency and gives us something that we can go back to our taxpayers and say that we are spending responsibly. So, I definitely stand in favor of this bill today. I take it as the good Chairwoman of Government Oversight said, "This is a good start. This is a good first step." And should everything go well, next session, I'll be back here saying, "Let's take step two." So, thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I may, just a question to the proponent of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you could just explain it, it might have been asked, but we've had conversation, I think, through this building and, frankly, through the press, and the public has seen some issues with that money has gone out, and it ends up being transferred to another entity. And that process sort of gets away from us where we're not able to track funding, as I say it, from cradle to grave. Could the good gentlewoman just explain the process? Have we sort of addressed the issue of subrecipients of state funding, through you?

Thank you very much for that question. I'm going to pass that off to the good woman of Appropriations who mandates the pass through.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you again, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There are circumstances where they are allowed to transfer. For example, if you have a youth baseball team that you're paying for, they have to pay for a bus. A bus is not something that is in their regular personnel's file. They're going to have to contract with them for that. But in order to do that, it has to go back through, and it's got to be defined in the purpose of the grant so that those things have to be identified early on as they go through the process. So, I cannot if you ask me, "Can I have $10 from this grant?" You cannot get that because that was not accepted in the contract that goes on between you and the agency that you're getting the contract with. Those are only acceptable types of items. It is not something that says you can be a lender on this behalf of the State of Connecticut. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So then just hypothetically, if a grant award of $100,000 is given to the United Way of New Haven, and they identify certain organizations, maybe five other nonprofit organizations that are going to administer certain youth programs in the city. For that money to be released to the United Way, they would have to disclose those five nonprofits prior to that money being released. Once it is released, they would have the freedom to allocate that money to those organizations, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly correct. It is not an option. It is not something -- and let's just say you contract with ABC company to provide transportation and something happens to ABC, you then have to go back to the entity who you got the money from and change the contract because ABC is no longer going to be doing it, somebody else is in order for you to get any further compensation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I don't have any further questions, and I just wanted to remark on this bill. And I'm grateful this process has become a bipartisan process because I think we were all concerned as we've seen playing out in the news, few stories after stories, not just in Connecticut but all across the country of how tax dollars are administered, and how they may be well-intended but they end up getting out of our control and possibly being used in a way that ends up embarrassing the State of Connecticut and embarrassing the institution. I think that this legislation is the beginning, but I would say, I think it is a good faith attempt to address, in particular, the issue of third parties receiving or subrecipients, receiving dollars that we intended for a different purpose. And maybe people lost their way or the organizations have lost their way. So, I look forward to continuing to be part of this process, to bring transparency to government, to make this good government, and I appreciate all the work that's been done on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I rise to align my remarks with those of the good minority leader, and I'm happy to see that it sounds like this is going to be bipartisan action on this bill. But what I also want to note is more often than not, when we're dealing with legislation in this building, it's to address issues that are the exceptions rather than the norm, and I feel confident in saying the vast majority of legislators in any government body come up here and try to seek funding for good programs, for good organizations in their districts. And when those organizations receive that funding, they use those dollars in the way that they were intended. But as the case is, there are exceptions to the rule. And I think anything that we can do to improve our processes, to ensure that the public has faith in terms of what we're doing and where we're allocating limited resource dollars, I think it's to the better for all of us. It's certainly better for the taxpayer. It's better for the organizations that rely on the important funds that we secure them, for them to deliver the important services that they provide to the people that we all represent. So I would urge all my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5039 as amended by House A: Total Number Voting 141 Necessary for Adoption 71 Those voting Yea 141 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 10

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Members missed votes as noted. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clerk is in possession of members who missed votes, reasons for doing so. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate everybody's good work today. And with that, I move we adjourn subject to the call of the Chair.