The 23-member commission is chaired by Lamont’s deputy chief of staff, Natalie Wagner, and includes a mix of bipartisan state and local elected officials, union leaders, school administrators and policy analysts. Its mission: to interrogate the entirety of Connecticut’s complex school funding system and propose reforms.

The governor appeared in person to share opening remarks and lay out his vision for the group.

“Think about how much money we’re spending, how we do that, and how we make sure it makes the biggest difference. I want money going to the classroom, I want money going to the teachers, and I want more teachers,” Lamont told the members of the commission.

Lamont reiterated his longstanding assertion that the commission’s work wouldn’t sit “on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.” He wants its report, due in January 2027, to set the stage for the next legislative session, where the General Assembly will have the opportunity to tackle what has become a serious fiscal problem for the state.

“We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars more on K-12 than we did before. … We’re still not keeping up,” Lamont said.

He also used the opportunity to signal where his own education priorities currently lie. High on the list: special education, a topic he has brought up several times in recent months.

“I would urge you to think about how the state should … help you take the lead on special education. A, in terms of funding. B, in terms of how we can better negotiate, make sure we have local solutions” instead of sending kids with special needs out of their home districts, Lamont told the commission.

Sending children to specialized out-of-district facilities is a major financial burden for many local school systems. The state has a program — the excess cost grant — to cover some of those expenses, but it has significant gaps. A newer source of state funding, the SEED grant, helps pay for in-district special education services, but advocates say it doesn’t come close to meeting the need.

Lamont also urged the commission to consider transportation and health insurance, two other major sources of financial pressure for districts. He said health insurance costs in particular have risen by as much as 40%.

“There, we need some work,” Lamont said. “At a minimum, look at the Partnership Plan run by [State Comptroller] Sean Scanlon.”

The Connecticut Partnership Plan allows non-state public employees — for example, people who work for municipal school districts — to get the same health care coverage as state employees and retirees.

Lamont also included a plug for a topic he called “a personal favorite”: teacher apprenticeship programs.

“Maybe their third year of teacher’s college in the Ivory Tower — that’s great, but maybe you want to be in the classroom, working with a master teacher,” Lamont said.

Various school administrators have said teachers come out of university still needing significant training, which the districts that hire them often end up having to provide.

The governor closed his remarks with a nod toward student mental health services.

That “type of program, I think, is worth expanding … maybe that’s another way to get a young person there another shoulder to lean on,” Lamont said.

Shortly after the governor’s comments, the commission launched into a detailed presentation from the consultant group Education Resource Strategies on the current state of play in Connecticut education policy. One notable statistic: By at least one measure, Connecticut has the highest funding disparity between high- and low-poverty districts of any state in the country.

The ranking reflects a concern that dominated the recent legislative session: Schools in less affluent towns and cities aren’t getting enough money, and students often pay the price.

The Blue Ribbon Commission will meet regularly through the rest of the year. Its final report is due Jan. 15.

Theo Peck-Suzuki is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Public Health Committee Democratic co-chairs Sen. Saud Anwar and Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey are planning to propose legislation next session that would make Connecticut the first to provide preventative screenings for firefighters, earlier intervention and treatment.

“No society is complete without having firefighters to protect them and because they are putting their lives on the line immediately and long term to save us, it is our responsibility to do whatever it is in our power to take care of them and save them too,” said Anwar.

McCarthy Vahey said in an email that “we are interested in how we can improve screening and awareness in order to catch issues earlier and achieve better results for our firefighters who have been exposed to cancer-causing toxins.

“In addition to looking at whatever we can do on the prevention side, we want to look at earlier intervention and treatment,” McCarthy Vahey said. “Targeted screening is one element.”

The International Association of Firefighters reported last year that “80% of IAFF member line-of-duty deaths were due to occupational cancer.”

Peter Brown, president of the Uniformed Professional Firefighters Association of Connecticut, said firefighters, both male and female in their 30s and 40s, “are getting these very aggressive, very rare forms of cancer that no one is seeing in that age group outside of the fire service.

“The age that firefighters are getting diagnosed and the types of cancer that they’re getting diagnosed with is something that is not seen really in any other profession,” he said.

Amid crisis in police and firefighter ranks, CT finds incentives. Here’s what is proposed

For the better part of 10 years, Dr. Talal Khan, has worked with 150 first responders including firefighters specializing in preventative care.

Khan, who on May 4, opened his fourth practice, Khan Longevity Care in Enfield, said he screens first responders for lung cancer and heart attack prevention.

In opening his office in Enfield, Khan said he wants to create “awareness that first responders are at risk.

“Let’s take care of them,” he said. “Firefighters have a unique risk. Part of their training is dealing with and managing fire exposure which would increase risk of lung disease and obstructive lung disease. But then the nature of the job in which these first responders are can involve a lot of sitting time, it puts them at risk for insulin resistant diabetes and heart disease. Some of that is lifestyle and making the right choice with food and sometimes it’s medications. But it’s just really catching these things early. I think anybody who works in this line of work whether they are doctors or police officers, there is a lot of stress associated with this.”

He said he begins early screening for first responders with bloodwork that also measures the lipoprotein (a) in the blood, which is a genetic marker for heart disease. He also conducts a coronary calcium scan measuring calcium buildup in the coronary arteries.

Thompsonville Fire District 2 Fire Chief David Deskis said that the dangers firefighters face are more than just fire.

“So the hazards that we deal with on a day to day basis with asbestos, exhaust fumes, PFAS, all kinds of chemicals that we don’t see, we need another avenue to kind of have preventative maintenance on trying to bring numbers down,” Deskis said. “You know you think when you’re fighting a fire, that’s the danger but absolutely not because later on, years later, all of this comes creeping up on our folks.”

Cancer hits close to home in Thompsonville because two firefighters have been diagnosed with cancer, one who overcame it and the other still battling it.

Deskis said he is hopeful for the new legislation and Khan’s program.

“With this new program, if you can build your immune system up with good health, your body perhaps has a better chance of fighting any risk of cancer if you are exposed to it,” he said.

He said the culture is changing in fire departments.

“I think these younger people are seeing their mentors that have been in the fire service for a while, seeing them get sick, kind of makes them realize maybe we should do something to help, possibly help ourselves,” he said.

The proposed legislation would make screenings more available for volunteer organizations or larger fire departments that can’t afford to cover such screenings.

Brown said for the last few years the focus has been on making sure cancer protections are in place for firefighters.

Lawmakers passed legislation in 2016 creating a Firefighters Cancer Relief Fund in the state that provides financial assistance to firefighters diagnosed with cancers linked to their profession, according to the state treasurer’s office. Since then, in 2025 the legislature expanded the types of cancers covered in the fund.

Now, Brown said, the priority has changed to prevention and early detection of cancers for firefighters.

In working with Comptroller Sean Scanlon, Brown said they have been able to get over a 1,000 firefighters covered for free cancer screening every two years.

But there is a need to cover more firefighters, as there are nearly 3,000 career firefighters in the state and many more volunteer firefighters, Brown said.

“Getting the program in place will give access to more firefighters to be able to access these tests,” Brown said, adding that it is also integral to have state data on firefighter cancer rates.

Deskis said, “I just think if we could change the culture for our firemen to be a lot healthier and get these screenings I think our service will be very healthy for many years to come.”

Elliott, a state legislator from Hamden, has been harshly criticizing Lamont as he seeks Democratic votes in an uphill battle against a two-term incumbent with widespread name recognition. But Elliott says he will soon be eligible for $3.7 million in public funds to wage a historic battle against Lamont, a Greenwich multimillionaire who has spent more than $60 million of his own money on four statewide races over the past 20 years.

“This campaign has now raised more in qualifying contributions than any candidate in the history of the Citizens’ Election Program,” Elliott said, referring to this year’s inflation-adjusted total of $335,000 that triggers the public grant. “We continue to punch above our weight because we know exactly what we are fighting for: affordable housing, lower energy costs, a public health insurance option, and a tax structure where the cost of state and local government does not fall on the shoulders of working families.”

Elliott is continuing his fundraising in order to have a cushion in case some contributions are disqualified in the same way that candidates gather more than the minimum number of petition signatures in order to gain a spot on the ballot. The State Elections Enforcement Commission will make the final determination on when Elliott would receive the public funds. Elliott told The Courant on Monday that he expects to file his formal application on June 10 and receive funding by the end of the month.

“Every misstep at this stage means weeks of delay, and weeks of delay are weeks we are not spending in front of voters,” Elliott told supporters in an email. “The larger our buffer, the better our chances of getting that grant out of the gate. Right now, it is all hands on deck. Our team is working through roughly $60,000 in contributions that still need to be cleaned up and verified, and we have moved internal resources onto that effort so the application we submit is the strongest it can be. This whole campaign has been about the fight ahead of us, and building the best possible grant application is the next one.”

A to Z vs. Elliott

At the same time, the race is getting nastier as Elliott has become involved in a dust-up with former House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, a pro-union Democrat who served with Elliott in the legislature before becoming a paid lobbyist and television pundit on WTNH Channel 8, in New Haven.

On Facebook, Aresimowicz wrote in detail on Elliott’s campaign.

“But seriously Democratic primary voters should pay close attention to Josh Elliott’s campaign, and it goes beyond any single issue or policy disagreement,” Aresimowicz wrote. “What is most concerning is the style of politics he is bringing to this race. For years, many Democrats have criticized Donald Trump not simply because of where he stood on issues, but because of how he approached public life. Trump built a political movement around grievance, outrage, and the idea that anyone who disagreed with him was corrupt, compromised, or acting in bad faith. Complex problems were reduced to simple villains. Institutions were portrayed as inherently suspect. Nuance became weakness. Governing became secondary to performance.”

Aresimowicz continued, “Josh Elliott’s campaign increasingly follows that same playbook. No, he is not Donald Trump ideologically. But the tactics are strikingly familiar. Every disagreement becomes evidence of corruption. Every policy debate becomes a morality play. Anyone who raises practical concerns or asks difficult questions is portrayed as serving some special interest. The goal is not to persuade people who disagree. The goal is to delegitimize them. That may generate applause at campaign events. It may produce effective fundraising emails. But it is a dangerous way to govern.”

In a column on Substack, Elliott had blasted Eversource and said that Aresimowicz had defended the giant electric utility that last year collected $1.69 billion in profits. After leaving the legislature, Aresimowicz became a paid lobbyist for Gaffney Bennett, a New Britain-based firm that represents Eversource and other corporate interests. On Monday, the firm’s website included praise from former New Britain mayor Erin Stewart that the firm’s “knowledge of statewide issues and their relationships with employees at all levels of government has resulted in opportunities for us that we deemed impossible.”

Referring to Aresimowicz’s regular appearance on Channel 8, Elliott wrote, “In the segment, the former Speaker defended Eversource’s practices and treated this campaign as a threat to the corporation, which it is. Then he reached for a familiar dismissal, calling this an issues campaign as though caring about the issues were a flaw. The phrase is his, not ours: we have never described this as only an issues campaign, but as a campaign to win, and the issues are the reason we are winning the argument. … If the complaint from Eversource’s hired voice is that we talk about the issues too much, that is a complaint I am content to keep earning.”

Elliott added, “It is also why it matters to send someone to the governor’s office who will hold Eversource accountable rather than shield them from actual oversight. Franklin Roosevelt fought the utility monopolies of his era, and when organized money lined up against him, he said plainly, ‘I welcome their hatred.’ I feel the same about the opponents this campaign is making. When a corporation like Eversource decides you are worth attacking, it is because you intend to change an arrangement that has served their executives very well.”

On Monday, Elliott declined to push the argument further and declined to comment on the former Speaker’s mention of Trump.

“We aren’t looking to have a big back and forth with Joe,” Elliott told The Courant in an email. “We respect that he doesn’t think this campaign is worth running, and we pointed out that he is a paid Eversource lobbyist. It was about as simple as that.”

Elliott has been increasingly at odds with Lamont as they head toward the Aug. 11 primary.

“While Josh Elliott is focused on grandstanding, picking fights, and casting himself as the lone righteous voice in the room, Governor Lamont is focused on delivering results,” said Rob Blanchard, Lamont’s chief campaign spokesman. “His record speaks for itself: the largest permanent middle-class tax cut in Connecticut history, the Take Back Our Grid Act to hold utilities accountable, and policies that are now lowering residential electric bills by roughly 14%, saving many families money each month. Governor Lamont is working hard and getting results for taxpayers.”

Fundraising continues

So far, Elliott says 3,215 people have contributed to his campaign with 5,470 separate contributions for an average of less than $64 each. The contributions came from more than 150 of Connecticut’s 169 cities and towns under the state public financing rules that limit a maximum donation to $340. Overall, $302,000 of the total must come from in-state contributions, which will be checked by the SEEC in a detailed process.

Elliott describes the process as “exceptionally hard” and the campaign as “exhausting” as he has visited one to three Democratic town committees on many nights as he criss-crosses the state.

But the governor, a fiscal moderate who’s been wary about using state dollars to bolster shrinking federal human service programs, maintained a noncommittal stance he’s held since February.

“He’s a good friend, but I’m really frustrated,” Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, said of changing federal rules that have pushed tens of thousands of Connecticut residents off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. “People are really hurting right now.”

Lesser, who co-chairs the General Assembly’s Human Services Committee, added that “I don’t think this is going to get any better” at the federal level.

The Middletown lawmaker was referring to SNAP enrollment numbers which, according to the Connecticut Department of Social Services, stood at 308,628 recipients, down almost 35,600 or 10% since Nov. 1, when new federal eligibility and other rule changes took effect.

Nearly half of that erosion occurred between March and April alone.

Many factors could have shaped those changes, as households routinely come off and onto the SNAP rolls each month.

But anti-hunger advocates estimate federal rule changes adopted last July by Congress and President Donald Trump have pushed 30,000 or more Connecticut recipients off the benefit program already. Veterans, unhoused individuals, young adults transitioning from foster care and parents of minor children age 14 and older no longer are exempt from work requirements, even though many struggle with mental illness. Federal officials also cut SNAP benefits for certain categories of legal immigrants.

Lesser and other of Lamont’s fellow Democrats in the General Assembly’s majority have recommended tapping state finances, which have achieved unprecedented surpluses for nearly a decade, to help these households buy groceries.

Elliott: When Lamont says ‘We’ll see’ he means ‘No’

“We’re looking into that,” Lamont told the Connecticut Mirror last Thursday, adding his goal is “to make sure that nobody gets left behind.”

But the governor said something similar on May 6.

“Let me take a look if we’re not getting the job done” with the measures that already have been taken, he said.

And when Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, pledged last December to propose a state-funded food benefit in the 2026 legislative session, the governor said it was unnecessary.

Osten, who co-chairs the Appropriations Committee, estimated Connecticut could replace the benefits for this population for less than $50 million per year — roughly 3% of this year’s projected $1.6 billion surplus. But she watched her proposal get left out of the budget Lamont and lawmakers adopted in early May.

Connecticut has used aggressive budget caps to force average yearly surpluses topping 8% of revenues since Lamont took office in 2019, two-and-a-half times greater than the largest surplus ever achieved in two decades prior.

But Lamont has used these caps primarily to chop $11 billion off Connecticut’s hefty pension debt. And critics say the governor is asking one generation to solve a problem created by the poor savings habits of three, dating back to 1939. These budget caps, they add, are siphoning huge resources away from health care, town aid, education and human service initiatives such as food assistance.

There’s also another $380 million still sitting in a special fund — created outside of the formal budget — that legislators set up specifically to offset federal cuts to human service programs. But only Lamont can propose tapping those funds to pay benefits to people losing SNAP benefits, and to date he has not.

“It’s all ‘we’ll see,’ and then he just does nothing,” said state Rep. Josh Elliott of Hamden, who will battle Lamont for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in an Aug. 11 primary. “He’s unwilling to ask his wealthy friends to pay their fair share.”

Administration officials note the governor has helped protect a host of health care, education and social service programs jeopardized over the past year by Trump and Congress.

Lamont’s campaign spokesman, Rob Blanchard, said the governor hasn’t stopped working for solutions to the SNAP issue.

“It’s easy for Josh to criticize from the aisles of his luxury organic grocery store, but governing is hard work,” Blanchard said. “When the federal government threatened SNAP and food bank funding, Gov. Lamont stepped up with millions in emergency state grants to help ensure no one went hungry. Now, he’s continuing that work by partnering with [the Department of Social Services] to build on those efforts and protect Connecticut families from federal instability.”

Lamont has drawn about $30 million from Connecticut’s federal cut response fund, but critics say his actions are far too modest.

The governor sent nearly $25 million to food banks and pantries. Another $4.7 million went to the United Way of Connecticut’s 2-1-1 information line and to nonprofit community action agencies, which help SNAP recipients navigate new eligibility rules and find additional forms of aid.

And the administration added 50 new positions to an understaffed social services department, also to help residents with SNAP and other assistance programs.

Food banks and pantries can’t replace SNAP benefits

But anti-hunger forces, including organizations that have received this funding, say the problem is too big for them alone to solve.

“We have said a million times that SNAP is the first defense against hunger in the United States,” Jason Jakubowski, president and CEO of Connecticut Foodshare, said last week.

Jakubowski, whose nonprofit provides food to most pantries across the state, has said Connecticut’s network of food banks and pantries are equipped to cover a fraction of the need when SNAP benefits are removed.

And Lisa Tepper Bates, president and CEO of the United Way of Connecticut, agrees.

The Gemma E. Moran Unites Way/Labor Food Center in New London and pantries it assists in surrounding communities “simply don’t have the bandwidth” to offset the loss of monthly SNAP benefits, which averages about $190 per person in Connecticut, she said.

Many food banks and pantries rely on volunteer help and maintain limited hours. They also provide a limited amount of fresh food, since refrigeration is costly. That means people losing SNAP are being forced to eat a diet of mostly shelf-stable food — often higher in sodium and lower in nutrition, which can be dangerous for people with certain health conditions.

Eastford, a small, rural community in Windham County, operates a food bank in cooperation with a local Baptist church, two days per month for a total of five hours.

Coordinator Audrey Carabeau said residents who cannot visit on those days are welcome to call, and staff will try to arrange a special appointment. “That happens quite a bit” in recent months, she added.

Connecticut’s network of nonprofit community action agencies has intensified its outreach efforts since last fall to help people find options to preserve SNAP benefits, find new work if possible, or secure other assistance, said Rhonda Evans, executive director for the Connecticut Association for Community Action.

And appeals for assistance have “increased steadily since then,” she said, adding that losing a cash benefit like SNAP “has a residual impact.”

Families lacking funds for groceries will make difficult choices, like sacrificing medication or not paying rent, Evans said.

Demand for food assistance surging here and nationally

According to new research, the number of households making those tough choices is on the rise.

Citing its Survey of Consumer Expectations, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported a “remarkable” rise in food insecurity nationally.

In February, 10% of households reported not having enough food or that children had missed meals, up from 8% in October. Among non-white households, 19% or nearly one in five, faced this problem.

And the Consumer Price Index for groceries was up 2.9% in April compared to the same month in 2025, the largest year-over-year inflation increase in this category since August 2023.

Most groceries are delivered by diesel-powered trucks, and the AAA reported an average diesel price Friday of $5.52 per gallon nationally, up 50% from the $3.68 average on Feb. 28 when the U.S. war with Iran began.

Advocates say supermarket gift cards could be a solution

Meanwhile, had Lamont been open to creating a state-funded nutrition benefit last winter, Osten said, the current crisis wouldn’t be so severe.

The administration hasn’t offered a specific time estimate but has said it would take many months to get such assistance up and running.

“They’ve had an opportunity to work on this,” Osten said, “so I don’t buy that argument.”

Both Lesser and the United Way of Connecticut have offered a compromise. The state could distribute grocery store gift cards through community action agencies or other charitable nonprofits to assist households most in need until the next regular legislative session begins in January.

End Hunger CT, a nonprofit that supports universal free school meals, believes even $95 per person per month would provide real help to those pushed off SNAP benefits, said the group’s policy coordinator, Amari Brantley.

Osten also said many would accept a compromise solution, given that thousands of Connecticut residents have been going hungry for months.

“Nobody’s looking for perfection,” she added. “They’re looking for a first step forward.”

Keith Phaneuf and Laura Tillman are reporters for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @CT Mirror (CT mirror.org).

That time was just a fraction of the 14 hours and 41 minutes Sampson spoke during Senate debates this session — about 18% of the total time the legislative body spent in debate, according to a CT Mirror analysis that employed artificial intelligence.

Sampson has long been known for his lengthy debate strategies, a habit that drew attention early in the session when Senate Democrats took a rare step and called for emergency certification of bills that hadn’t passed last session. They said the bills had failed because of Republican debate tactics.

Some advocates and politicians say Sampson’s debate style is obstructive, a stalling tactic that prevents important bills from being passed. Others think the time-honored tradition of unlimited debate is a vital part of Connecticut’s legislative process.

Following Sampson, seven other GOP Senators each spoke in the ballpark of 3 to 5 hours throughout the session. Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk was the most outspoken Democrat, speaking for a total of 2 hours and 44 minutes.

CT Mirror calculated time spoken by tallying the number of seconds each speaker spent talking across the 17 Senate session days. The calculation does not include pauses or responses directed to the speaker.

Senate Republicans talked more than Senate Democrats for all but two days of the session. The 11 GOP Senators spoke 57% of the time, and the 26 Democratic Senators spoke for a combined 32%.

When you can’t vote, talk

Gayle Alberda, associate professor of politics at Fairfield University, was not surprised to hear that the minority party talks so much.

“[Talking] is kind of one of the only mechanisms, because they’re not in positions of leadership when they don’t have control of the chamber,” she said.

“There’s an old political saying … ‘When you have the vote, vote, and when you don’t, talk,'” said Senate President Martin Looney, D-New Haven.

And when it comes to Sampson’s outsized role, he might be the “party designee” called upon by leadership when a filibuster is required, because it is known that he can perform, Alberda said.

But some advocates and politicians are frustrated by what they view as a deliberate attempt to run out the clock.

“It’s not just a question of everybody’s right to have their voices heard, no … it’s deliberately dragging out the time so that it’s harder to get more bills passed,” Lori Brown, the executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said.

She was disappointed not to see the waste management and tire recycling bills, HB 5524 and HB 5157, pass in the constrained time window of the short session.

“You can guarantee that someone like Sampson is just put up there to just chatter, to just say anything and everything, whether it’s related or not,” Brown said.

Sen. Martha Marx, D-New London, was also frustrated by the amount of time Senate Republicans spent posing questions.

“I think they’re wasting people’s time, like 95% of the time” when asking bill questions, Marx said.

Marx also worries about the safety of leaving the state house in the middle of the night after 12 hours of debate to drive home. “Leaving at 2 o’clock in the morning is dangerous,” she said. “It just serves no purpose except to pontificate.”

On the penultimate day of session, Senate Republicans spent 6 hours debating an omnibus transportation bill that passed 32-4 with bipartisan support.

Sen. Christine Cohen, D-Guilford, co-chair of the Transportation Committee who brought the bill, said that after three hours, it became clear the debate was no longer constructive and instead just a “delay tactic.”

“Their strategy, I think, was to try to get us to change our minds on the gun bill by talking that transportation bill far longer than it was justified,” Looney said.

“They kept coming back to us earlier on that day and the day before, saying we can move things a lot quicker if you will agree not to take out the gun bill at all. We said ‘No, that’s an important bill for us, an important bill for the governor, and we are going to do that bill,'” Looney said.

Debate over the gun bill went until 7:22 a.m. on the last morning of session when it passed along party lines.

“That’s part of their job, is to have these deliberations,” Alberda said. “It’s meant to move slowly.”

An exercise in time management

However, Senate Republicans say they cannot be blamed for Democrats’ “poor calendar management.”

“They control the calendar, they can call a bill, and they can fall into session any day they want,” said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield.

“If a bill was that important to them, they could call us into session on any day in March and get that bill called. We can’t filibuster that until midnight on May 4, and they know that,” Harding said.

Sampson suggested that to get in more debate time, Senators could start their days earlier. The Senate is typically not in session in the morning and often begins much later than planned.

“I speak on these bills because I believe very firmly that my job is to represent my constituents,” Sampson said.

Sampson said strike-all amendments that replace entire bills without giving lawmakers time to read the new language “drive me to speak more.”

Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, the second-biggest talker, agreed. “You’ll get something an hour or two sometimes before it’s actually voted upon as a strike-all amendment or whatever, and you don’t really have an opportunity to understand what’s in the bill before before you vote on it,” he said.

Proposals in years past to mandate a 24-hour notice period for legislation text didn’t go anywhere, said Fazio, who is running for governor.

Republicans say if they are not brought to the negotiating table, their options are limited.

A tradition of unlimited debate

The majority party has the power to “call the question,” a strategy that would immediately end debate, but unlimited debate is a tradition, and as Looney says, a “privilege.”

Cooperation from Republicans has allowed the tradition to continue, even as their representation dwindles, Looney said.

Besides, any effort to call the question would require coordination between the House and the Senate, and House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said he was not aware of any abuses of the legislative ecosystem in 2026.

“We got passed everything we wanted to get passed,” Duff said of this year’s session.

Sampson said he’s sometimes used as a scapegoat when Democratic leadership may not want to call a bill.

“There are many bills [Democratic leadership] do not want to pass that come from their own membership, and they love to use the minority, and particularly me, because of my skill set, as the foil to suggest that I’m the person responsible,” Sampson said.

“They can pass anything they want. The matter of the limitation is only their priorities.”

Looney reinforced that Democrats pass what they want to get done and said Republicans don’t limit them.

Democrats employed one unconventional method this session: two emergency-certification bills that passed priority legislation skirting traditional avenues.

And, if it was really necessary, leadership has the option to call a special session once the clock hits midnight on the last day.

Looney said he’s proposed a rule change that would allow lawmakers to continue bills that passed one chamber in previous years without sending them back through the committee process, thereby bypassing what they deem repetitive debate.

Republicans argue that it’s necessary to get their objections on the record.

“I really believe that if Sen. Sampson, or someone like Sen. Sampson, did not exist, he would have to be invented for the public’s benefit, because there needs to be someone who is a constant intellectual skeptic and a thorough intellectual skeptic of big government in the state Senate,” Fazio said.

Editor’s note: CT Mirror made transcriptions of CT-N recordings of senate sessions using Deepgram, which provided speaker diarisation and timestamps. Speaking time per person was calculated by summing the duration of each of their utterances and excluding silent gaps. Pauses between speakers were not included in the calculations.

Ginny Monk is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Some reading this may call it NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard), even if the residents have some legit concerns.

The way I understand it, especially in our current political climate, witnessing this kind of pushback is essential to helping us see that we do have control over what happens around us.

Now, of course, sometimes what’s behind NIMBY is racism or greed or class divisions. This kind of mentality should never be applauded.  However, we should applaud NIMBY efforts when they are based on the protection of wetlands, noise or light pollution, and other valid quality-of-life issues.

As an activist who is involved in protests, boycotts, postcard campaigns, democracy groups and many emails to my political representatives both on the state and national level — I would like NIMBY to also include NIMBUS (I just made that up).

Not In My Beloved United States.

Can we take some of that wonderful energy that folks are bringing to local town halls all over this country and harness some of that for national issues? The reality is that we can do both.

I definitely care about my favorite Connecticut town — West Hartford — and our wonderful Mayor Shari Cantor can tell you she’s received emails from me about quality-of-life issues.

I also care and try to defend the best things about being an American.

It’s time that we take some of that energy we put into local issues and dedicate it to what we are facing today: environmental degradation, racism, sexism, homophobia, loss of voting protections, loss of privacy, and the list goes on and on and is added to every day.

The damage from our disintegrating democracy demands attention — and now.

A lot of significant actions only take minutes out of the day. Email a senator and tell him how you feel. Postcard campaigns are an easy way to promote voting in vulnerable areas (some folks have postcard parties and include refreshments). Local protests welcome you even if you stay for a brief amount of time. Boycotts are probably the easiest because you aren’t doing something (shopping) and lists of companies to boycott are easy to find online. Join a powerful democracy group like Indivisible or 50501 and attend a once-a-month meeting.

Ask yourself if you have any spare time to stand up for what’s decent and good and true about this great country of ours, because if you have time and energy for local issues (just as important as national issues), we desperately need your passion and commitment.

Join us for NIMBUS. Let’s go!

Elizabeth Keifer is a semi-retired English professor, an activist, and a member of her local Indivisible democracy group in West Hartford.

In a highly unusual event, former top Senate Republican leaders, including John McKinney and Len Fasano, returned to the chamber in a show of bipartisan appreciation for Looney’s decades of work in the Senate “circle.”

The celebration turned into a Capitol reunion for those who worked closely with Looney, even from more than 25 years ago. The celebrants ranged from former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and former Senate President Don Williams to former House Speaker Tom Ritter and longtime Senate Democratic chief of staff Vinnie Mauro.

“If there was a Mount Rushmore of Connecticut legislators, I don’t know who the other three would be, but we know that Marty Looney would be one of them,” said Derek Slap, a West Hartford Democrat. “You’re going out on top. … We love you, Marty. Thank you.”

State Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican who has served with Looney for the past 34 years, noted that Looney is a major Boston Red Sox fan.

“You are the Ted Williams of this legislature,” said Kissel, referring to one of the greatest hitters in baseball history.

In a break from tradition in which only senators can speak in the historic, third-floor chamber, various high-ranking officials stepped up to the podium to tell their stories about Looney as a Senate giant and living legend.

“Marty, we’re here because we love you,” said Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat who has worked closely with Looney over the past eight years as they negotiated the annual state budget and many complicated bills.

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a longtime member of Congress, told the crowd that she and Looney started together as Democrats in New Haven politics in June 1975.

“Marty has been the conscience of the Connecticut legislature … for those who have no lobbyist and no seat at the table,” DeLauro said. “He is one of the finest public servants I have had the honor to call a colleague. … Marty, we are the son and a daughter of immigrant families who would only dare dream where we would end up. … Some may not know your name, but they know what you have done on their behalf.”

Malloy told the crowd that he was running for governor in 2010 and passed by Looney’s New Haven house and saw Marty and his wife, Ellen, as they were cutting the front lawn.

“We’re better because we know him,” Malloy said. “We’re better because we listen to him. … Marty, 46 years, God bless you. You were the leader. … We will be talking about you for years to come.”

Looney will depart in January as the highest-ranking senator with a longtime reputation as a seasoned negotiator and a master at crafting compromises in complicated bills that included capturing sometimes-blocked items that suddenly resurfaced later in the budget implementation bill.

A New Haven stalwart, Looney won his first election as a state lawmaker in 1980 and is now tied with state Rep. Mary Mushinsky of Wallingford as the two longest-serving legislators in Hartford. Mushinsky, too, is not seeking reelection.

Known for being cerebral, low-key and unflappable, Looney, 77, has been a longtime college professor and attorney who brings those skills to the Senate floor as a seasoned debater who frequently makes references to historical figures off the top of his head without using any notes. His near-photographic memory and love of sports allowed him at the age of 10 to start memorizing all the winners of the Heisman Trophy – awarded annually to the top player in college football – that date back to 1935. To this day, he can recall minor details about the Heisman winners from more than 50 years ago.

Even though he was often the smartest and most experienced person in the room, Looney did it without ego and maintained a down-to-earth style for decades, his colleagues said.

In his closing remarks, Looney said he felt like George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” a famous film with many life lessons.

“Mr. Potter would be Donald Trump,” Looney said.

In self-deprecating style, Looney said he will have limited skills at home in his retirement, including that “my culinary range goes from making toast to putting a tea bag in water.”

Looking back on the past 46 years, Looney said, “It has been a blessing, an extraordinary blessing. … We are here for a period of time, blessed by our constituents, to do what we can. … Again, to everyone, it is a great blessing. … When I started out here, I had no idea how long it would be.”

Senate majority leader Bob Duff, who worked closely with Looney for the past 12 years, said that the situation was actually reversed and the Looneys were a blessing to their colleagues.

Speeches

In an event that lasted three hours and ended with an extended standing ovation, both Democrats and Republicans stood to praise Looney as a wise colleague who understood the history of the institution of the state legislature.

“Even when things got difficult and testy, you always led with humility and grace,” said Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz, who quoted one of Looney’s students who said that Looney “could talk about American government for three hours and never take a breath.”

After remarks by invited guests, the senators went around the circle to tell their memories.

Noting that they have worked together for 40 years, state Sen. John Fonfara of Hartford said Looney had “never once given me guardrails on how to do the job.”

He added, “Loyalty may not be Marty’s middle name, but it should be.”

Saying that he has served a combined 22 years in the House and Senate, Sen. Doug McCrory of Hartford said, “I have never heard anyone say anything bad about Marty.”

Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield said that Looney’s retirement had brought an impressive crowd of top leaders with high levels of responsibility in state government and beyond.

“When I retire, I would hope all these people would celebrate me,” Harding told Looney. “You represent the good in our humanity. … You can do so without being disagreeable.”

Sen. Norm Needleman, a 77-year-old Essex Democrat, said he will be the oldest person in the chamber after Looney leaves. He said it was remarkable that Looney has often said that when he drives from New Haven and sees the gold dome of the state Capitol that he gets “the same excitement that you did 46 years ago.”

Sen. Gary Winfield, a New Haven Democrat, said he has learned so much by sitting next to Looney in the Senate chamber, adding that it was a high honor to be named by Looney as co-chairman of the powerful judiciary committee.

“It has been amazing to watch you,” Winfield said as he stood only feet away from Looney.

Sen. Tony Hwang, a Fairfield Republican, said Looney not only has a remarkable memory but made a “remarkable recovery from a kidney transplant without skipping a beat” and returning soon to the chamber.

The kidney was donated by Superior Court Judge Brian Fischer, a fellow New Haven attorney who has known the senator for decades. Both leaders attended Notre Dame High School in West Haven, but not at the same time because Looney is five years older than his counterpart. The judge has described his donation as “a nice Christmas present” for a longtime friend.

Since he was a teenager, Looney has lived with Ankylosing Spondylitis, which is a rare form of arthritis that affects the spine and the neck. Those who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication to treat the condition can suffer from kidney problems.

After his surgery in December 2016, Looney soon returned to the chamber for the start of the session in 2017.

Voting on virtually every issue

From taxes and gun control to education and casino gambling, Looney has voted on every controversial issue at the Capitol over nearly five decades.

He is well known for his support of the earned income tax credit, which was not available at the state level until Malloy became governor. He also pushed to increase the minimum wage and paid family and medical leave, among others.

Looney is proud of his vote in favor of creating the state income tax in 1991, a bitterly contested issue that Looney says has proved to be an effective way to balance the state budget through the years. He also voted in favor of Malloy’s 2011 tax increase, the largest in state history.

A supporter of gun control, Looney has voted consistently for restrictions on firearms. In June 1993, Looney provided a crucial vote on a bill to ban assault weapons that passed the Senate after an 18-18 tie. Lt. Gov. Eunice Groark broke the tie after an emotional debate, and the measure was signed into law by Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr.

Heisman Memories

A sports fan from a young age, Looney told The Courant previously that an event more than 50 years ago triggered his lifelong interest in college football.

“I was 10 years old, and the Heisman Trophy winner that year [1958] was Pete Dawkins from Army,” Looney recalled in an interview. “I remember being enormously impressed that he was both a Heisman Trophy winner and a Rhodes Scholar. It seemed to me, ‘Wow, that was the peak of both worlds that would impress a kid.’ He was both a top athlete and a top student. Every year after that, I just added one more to the list. I went back and learned the Heisman Trophy winners going back to 1935.”

He added, “Ironically, Dawkins became an Army general later on. He became a Republican and ran for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey and lost … He was the last person from Army to win, but then two people from the Naval Academy won after that — Joe Bellino in 1960 and Roger Staubach in 1963.”

Longtime Senate Democratic counsel Joel Rudikoff said that working for Looney was the best years of his life.

“Sometimes in life you get to meet somebody great,” Rudikoff told Looney. “And sometimes in life you get to work for somebody great. … It has been a complete and utter honor to work for you.”

After the senators concluded, McKinney stood up to say that Looney had called him “a good partisan” during his 16 years in the Senate. Noting that Looney, a fellow Catholic high school graduate, is a master at legislative maneuvering, McKinney said he learned lessons from his veteran colleague about negotiating legislation.

“It should never be mean,” McKinney said. “It should never be personal.”

He recalls talking this through at dinner a few years ago with JD Vance, who was then the U.S. senator from Ohio. Would Republicans broaden their coalition first through economic progressivism? Or would Democrats beat them to the punch with more openness toward social conservatives who align with the party on an economic vision?

Vance, whom Murphy saw as someone willing to buck GOP orthodoxy at times, agreed with his theory. The Connecticut Democrat said it opened the door to a partnership on issues reflecting their shared belief in restoring the economy to work for Americans fed up with the current system. Even in an election year, Murphy said, Vance called in early 2024 to work on a bill to ban college-degree requirements for federal jobs.

But the bill didn’t come together, and Vance became Donald Trump’s vice presidential nominee months later. Years later, Murphy believes it’s still ripe for the taking.

“The collapse of my collaboration with Vance was a microcosm of the larger story of American politics today,” Murphy writes in his new book, released on Tuesday. “There is, indeed, a realignment available to a political candidate or movement that is willing to capture it.”

Murphy argues that Trump and his close allies on the right don’t have the desire to take it up. But Democrats, to his chagrin, may not be ready either. “So then why not us? Why does the Democratic Party not take the necessary steps to bring together traditional progressives and disaffected conservatives to create a new coalition?”

“Voters chose Trump because they wanted a revolution,” he continues. “But my party doesn’t yet seem completely ready to seize this moment. That is tragic, unacceptable, and worth having a fight over.”

In his second book, “Crisis of the Common Good: The Fight for Meaning and Connection in a Broken America,” Murphy explores the societal and economic forces that he believes have shaped modern-day American politics, bred division and led to a country that has put a premium on individualism over collectivism.

To Murphy, who has been one of the loudest Trump critics, the president is not the source of this shift but a byproduct of decades of policy choices, technological changes and the prioritization of profit. And the senator still views government as a vehicle for change, despite its failure to address root issues for the last few decades.

He seeks to define six “cults” that he argues have precipitated a lack of connection that once seemingly tied communities together in the workplace, social settings and beyond: profit, technology, consumption, corruption, credentialism and globalism.

Murphy attributes many things to these phenomena: the decimation of labor unions in recent decades, tech giants who have profited off of the addictive usage of social media by minors, and the disruption of downtowns and neighborhoods that have lost their unique charm.

He also provides a scathing look at corporations and billionaires whom he claims have used extractive practices to squeeze as much profit as possible out of consumers. Some things, Murphy argues, should remain untouchable for the greater good and shouldn’t be monetized just for the sake of generating greater profit.

He puts a spotlight on the company that owns his teenage son’s traveling hockey league, which is backed by a private equity firm. He recounts watching a parent recording a game from a corner of the arena that didn’t provide the best view. The parent said they feared getting in trouble and hurting the team’s standings since there’s a ban on live-streaming. Black Bear Sports Group offers a paid streaming service to watch the games.

That led him to introduce a new bill this month to ban “vulture” practices of investors that “causes harm or creates long-term risk of harm to an acquired entity in order to extract profit.” (Black Bear Sports Group told USA Today in a statement that it “looks forward to engaging with lawmakers and sharing all the ways we are growing youth hockey” including free and low-cost programs.)

“Our waning concern for the common good — for broad, shared prosperity that ensures every American a chance at a dignified, purposeful life — is the underlying crisis that has fueled Trump’s brand of empty, divisive, bombastic politics,” he writes.

Months after writing this book, Murphy weighed in on whether he still feels Democrats are open to embracing what he sees as an inevitable realignment.

Does he believe the party can be more tolerant of voters who want to challenge major profit centers and consolidated power but don’t share the same views on traditional Democratic priorities like gun reforms, reproductive rights and climate change?

“That doesn’t mean those aren’t really important issues,” Murphy said. “But my belief is that there are a lot of people who want us to try harder to find the places where we do agree, and I would argue that those places, creating a common-good capitalism, regulating technology, reforming our democracy, are really important too.”

Murphy himself believes he was too stringent. He acknowledged his role in applying a litmus test on guns when Democrats had a crowded presidential primary in 2020. While the issue is still a central focus for him, he argues it may have shut people out of the party and led to a smaller coalition for Democrats.

Speaking with The Connecticut Mirror prior to the book’s publication, Murphy said he sees artificial intelligence as the potential catalyst for a coming realignment. On gun reform, the Uvalde school shooting was the impetus for legislation that he ultimately championed in 2022. Now, job displacement and the “outsourcing” of human functions by AI might be a similar push needed to prompt change, Murphy predicts.

“There could be a breaking point that happens on AI, and I think it may be the thing that causes either the right or the left — more likely the left — to really confront the way in which our culture has been corroded and make some pretty drastic changes,” Murphy said in an interview.

“That’s why the book is a specific challenge to the left to do more to capture this realignment,” he said. “I’m writing a book at this moment where it’s not clear if our politics can meet the crisis that I outline.”

The book comes at a critical time in politics, months out from the midterm elections that decide control of Congress and an already much hyped, but so far nonexistent, bench of Democrats that may have an interest in running for president in 2028. Murphy is frequently mentioned as a potential contender for higher office.

While he’s been mum on his ambitions, he’s nevertheless taken many of the steps that historically telegraph an interest in presidential politics or some other higher office. He’s a prolific fundraiser, even when his own name isn’t on the ballot, and last year, he established his own political action committee, the American Mobilization Project.

He’s traveled the country to help with campaigns and to elevate issues. And he’s rolling out endorsements in contested Democratic primaries that could define the party.

The rise in his profile hasn’t come without sharp criticism from Republicans inside and outside of Washington. Murphy has tangled with the White House and the president himself, who has criticized the senator on the platform Truth Social. And more people take notice when he’s not in Connecticut, most recently when he opted to attend a No Kings rally in Los Angeles and snapped a photo with late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel.

And now he’s penned a second book, which will likely reignite speculation. But unlike some of his fellow Democrats, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Murphy’s aren’t memoirs and don’t contain headline-grabbing or flashy stories. They instead take a more historical and sociological deep-dive into the issues that animate his policy agenda in that moment of time.

Murphy is quick to make that distinction: Neither of his two books focuses heavily on his biography, and they don’t make Trump the central focus. Whether he’s interested in running in 2028 remains an open question but one he says he spends little time thinking about.

“I’m not a household name across the country, and so if I was thinking about running for office, I probably would write a book that talks about me and introduces me to people, but I didn’t do that,” Murphy told CT Mirror. “I wrote a book that looks very different than any of the other political books from my colleagues that are out this year.”

“I’m not talking about issues that divide Democrats and Republicans, which would probably be the thing you do if you were running in a Democratic primary,” he added. “I don’t know what my future is, but I just think I’d be foolish to be spending a lot of time thinking about it when there’s no guarantee there’s going to be an election in 2028.”

In his 2020 debut book, “The Violence Inside Us: A Brief History of an Ongoing American Tragedy,” he recalls his obscurity in national politics before his election to the Senate just a month before the Sandy Hook school shooting that led to his political coming-of-age. He didn’t see legislative success on the issue of guns until two years after publication.

But his sophomore book comes at a markedly different point in American politics and his career, in which he grew into a burgeoning negotiator and dealmaker and later evolved again into an outspoken Trump critic who hasn’t been shy to call out his own party since the disastrous 2024 elections — and still does, both in interviews and in the book. He’s become savvier at conveying this through social media, which has brought him moments of both virality and controversy.

Murphy recounted one of those moments from 2023 when he urged progressives to not be dismissive of Oliver Anthony’s overnight hit song, “Rich Men North of Richmond.” Anthony’s persona and the senator’s posts hit a political nerve. He sang about working-class issues — low wages, long hours and high taxes — but he also dabbled in conspiracy theories and mused about stereotypes around welfare programs.

The song is just one example Murphy uses to get at this larger thesis.

Murphy has spent the last several years talking about the issue of loneliness, which he said was exacerbated by the pandemic and fueled by social media. In the Biden administration, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared loneliness a public health epidemic in 2023, equating the risks of disconnection to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.

Murphy’s foray into the issue brought on skepticism at the time, something he openly acknowledged in past interviews. In the book, he recalled being met with “ridicule.” It made him briefly question whether he waded into unwelcome territory for a politician. He feels that has changed slightly since he first took it up.

“I think there’s a lot more space for these conversations around the emotional health of the country than there was five years ago when I started thinking about all of this, but it is still true that the day-to-day political stories dominate our attention economy and dominate most days for political figures,” he said.

While the book is not a memoir, Murphy weaved in stories from his upbringing in Wethersfield and how the small-town neighborly feel provided him a sense of connection at a young age. He lamented the loss of mom-and-pop type shops that colored his childhood, making way for the major chains that tore at the fabric of a town with a storied history.

Now, he’s hoping many of the topics in his book can translate into legislative action, some of which he has already introduced over the past few years. He concludes with a list of 30 proposals that he believes can achieve his vision of the “common good” — or, taken a different way, can read like a campaign platform.

They run the gamut of seeking to address the six pillars in his book: a minimum wage of $30 an hour, a ban on non-compete agreements, tariff policies coupled with domestic incentives, a social media ban for children under 13, local zoning changes for intergenerational living, a six-month requirement for young Americans to commit to national service and a constitutional amendment to regulate money in politics.

But he writes that what he learned over the past several years must go beyond politics, his job in Congress and even the defeat of Trump. For the senator, “it must be spiritual.”

“I try to challenge people to think about the entire idea of happiness. It’s not really a job or a salary. It’s your relationship, it’s your connections, it’s your sense that you are rooted to a particular place and a set of people,” Murphy said. “And I think government has just missed the mark for the last 30 years.”

Lisa Hagen is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (Ctmirror.org).

Scheff has led DDS since 2017 when he was appointed to the role by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, and Lamont expressed gratitude for his service to the department, which serves some of the most vulnerable people in the state.

“I am proud of the services offered here in Connecticut through the Department of Developmental Services and its partners to ensure that everyone has access to pursue meaningful life opportunities and can fully participate as valued members of our communities,” Lamont said in a statement. “Throughout his tenure, Jordan has strengthened this state agency to innovate and refine these services to provide quality supports for the individuals and families it serves, and his leadership has been instrumental in their continued success.”

Lamont expressed confidence in Velardo’s ability to lead the department in the interim.

For his part, Scheff said the “difficult decision” to leave was made for personal reasons after deliberation.

“Serving in this role has been one of the greatest honors of my professional career. I am incredibly proud of what we have accomplished together over the past 12 years to expand opportunities, strengthen supports, and continue building a more person-centered system for individuals and families across Connecticut,” Scheff wrote. “I know the future of DDS is bright, and I look forward to seeing its continued progress.”

In recent months, DDS has been criticized for the findings of a February report about abuse and neglect of people in the department’s care, which found that there were more than 4,000 allegations of abuse and neglect in 2024 alone, along with 15 deaths.

Following that report, lawmakers passed a bill that requires DDS to send reports about alleged abuse and neglect to the parent or legal guardians, provided they are not the alleged abuser, and provide them with a guide to help them navigate such allegations. DDS would also be required to train staff about confidentiality regarding complaints. It creates new requirements for the department’s annual reporting of abuse and neglect, and it requires an annual hearing on those reports.

That legislation now awaits Lamont’s signature.

During a hearing about the 2026 report, Scheff told lawmakers that he had been concerned about declining reports of abuse and neglect during COVID and that 2024’s high numbers reflect training and reporting systems that have empowered staff to file more reports.

“It means I have more eyes and ears from people who’ve been trained to see something and say something. And I think it’s important to note that, that’s an outcome of training,” he said. “Things that might not have otherwise been perceived as potential abuse and neglect are better perceived as potentially being that.”

Sarah Eagan, executive director of the Center for Children’s Advocacy and former Child Advocate, said Scheff should be commended for running a challenging agency.

“Jordan is someone who I think, to his credit, had an authentic commitment to partnership with families and advocates and was rarely if ever defensive about the areas that state government needed to improve,” she said. When Scheff used the word “partnership,” Eagan said, he was genuine and embraced dialogue.

That said, Eagan added, significant work needs to be done to ensure people receive the care they need and the state moves into a modern age of access.

“Jordan has not shied away from these conversations, which I appreciate, but we need to be clear that with a new leadership team must come an urgent commitment to timely work on these issues and transparency with families, advocates, the Office of Policy Management and legislators about what the needs of this system really are.”

Interim Commissioner Velardo, who began her career as a direct support professional, said she has spent more than 25 years dedicated to expanding opportunities for individuals with intellectual disabilities and their families.

“This work has always been more than a job for me. It has been a passion and a lifelong commitment,” Velardo said in a statement. “I am honored by the opportunity to serve as interim commissioner and appreciate Gov. Lamont’s confidence in me. I look forward to continuing the important work ahead and building on the strong foundation that has been created at DDS.”

Laura Tillman is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

He was nominated by Sana Shah, the vice chair of the Democratic town committee, who said, “We’ve got your back.”

Elliott may yet have a primary for his 88th House District seat: Anthony Fiore, who has opened a campaign committee, said he will petition for a place on the primary ballot in August.

Fiore, 22, the deputy chief of staff for the College Democrats of Connecticut, watched Elliott’s endorsement. He did not seek to have his name placed in nomination by Democratic town committee members.

There is no law against seeking the two offices, but Elliott cannot raise or expend money for the House race while he seeks public financing for the gubernatorial races.

“I do politics differently than a lot of people,” Elliott told the Democratic town committee, which endorsed him by acclamation. “And I just know what works for me.”

Elliott, 41, who was elected to the House a decade ago, alluded only indirectly to his other campaign, saying that over the past 10 months he has focused on “building community” with long conversations around the state, not just the quick pitch of a candidate.

“I get to hear the concerns first hand, not just within the first two or five minutes, but over the course of a longer period of time where I can get to know you, you can get to know me,” Elliott said.

Elliott, the owner of an organic food store founded by his mother in Hamden, told the DTC he was lost in his 20s before he got active in politics.

“I’m so grateful as I go into this,” Elliott said. “I am never going to be the smartest person in the room. I’m never going to be the hardest-working person in the room. But my God, I will at least try to be the person who cares the most.”

Mark Pazniokas is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).