None of the three candidates mentioned the president, whose approval rating recently dropped to a new low in national polling, at a meet-and-mingle event at a beachfront hotel in Madison, a community that Trump lost by 24 points in 2024 and 2020.

Betsy McCaughey, Ryan Fazio and Erin Stewart each had five minutes to impress during a format that was closer to speed dating than a debate. All projected energy and confidence, heaping scorn on Gov. Ned Lamont and delivering gentle jabs at their rivals for the GOP nomination.

First up was McCaughey, a 77-year-old wild card in a contest that once seemed certain to feature only Stewart and Fazio, two 30-somethings who had succeeded in Democratic arenas: Stewart as a mayor in New Britain; Fazio winning reelection in 2024 to the state Senate from a Fairfield County district Trump lost by 17 percentage points.

“I have two rivals in this race for the governor’s nomination, both very fine people,” McCaughey said. “But this election is too important for small ideas like taking $200 off your electric bill or offering a vague promise for ‘something different.’ We have to go big to win this race.”

The first was a dig at Fazio, the second at Stewart.

McCaughey is a Newsmax cable host who smiles big, talks fast and touts audacious promises — foremost among them, a vow to eliminate the income tax in Connecticut, an idea that was central to Republican Bob Stefanowski’s losing campaign for governor against Lamont in 2018.

Without a Republican legislative majority — an optimistic take on the GOP prospects in 2026 is avoiding losses in a midterm — McCaughey insists she somehow will repeal the affordable housing law signed by the man McCaughey calls “Lefty Lamont” and end state-mandated real estate revaluations.

Along with her cable flash, McCaughey brings a dash of conservative national recognition, a potential asset in a Republican primary and probable liability in a northeast general election. She was a featured speaker in Texas last week at CPAC, the annual convention of conservatives that Trump skipped this year.

“Last week, CPAC endorsed me for governor of Connecticut, the only candidate for any office in Connecticut that won that coveted endorsement from CPAC, partly because I fight for God as well as for Connecticut,” McCaughey said to a round of uncertain applause.

She is an outlier on two significant metrics: Uncertain is her ability to raise the funds necessary to qualify for public campaign financing or attract the necessary support at the GOP convention in May to qualify for the primary in August. A test will come on April 10, when first quarter fundraising reports become public.

Stewart and Fazio each qualified early for public financing under the revised Citizens’ Election Program, which will provide each about $3.2 million for the primary and another $15.4 million to the eventual nominee. Both have begun advertising, and no one questions their ability to win at least 15% of the convention vote, the ticket to the primary.

Fazio turned 36 last month, and Stewart is 38. They hope to offer a youthful contrast to the 72-year-old Lamont, who is seeking a rare third term with a solid approval rating. One thought is that even a losing run could help position them for 2030, but both insist the goal is a win now.

“This is a great turnout and is exactly the energy we need to turn Madison and the entire state of Connecticut red in 2026,” Fazio said.

Stefanowski, the Republican nominee against Lamont in the past two cycles, won his hometown of Madison in their close race for the open seat in 2018. But Lamont carried Madison by 15 points in their 2022 rematch, slightly better than his comfortable statewide margin.

Madison was emblematic of Lamont’s appeal — and broader Democratic gains — in well-to-do suburbs that once skewed Republican. Democrats now hold super majorities in Hartford of 25-11 in the Senate and 102-49 in the House.

Connecticut’s high cost of living is central to the campaigns of Fazio and Stewart.

“One thing is clear to me as I travel all across this state, and it’s that people are hurting in the state of Connecticut,” Fazio said. “They’re suffering under the weight of the third-highest tax burden and the second-highest electric bills in the entire country after only Hawaii, which is detached from the mainland, and California, which is detached from reality.”

The latter is a well-practiced line, and it got laughs.

“I make this pledge to you: If after two terms in office, I’m still presiding over a state with the third-highest taxes on electric bills in the country, I will not run for a third term,” Fazio said. “And yet, that’s exactly what this governor is doing, and that’s exactly why I’m running for governor.”

Stewart offered herself as a different candidate, a digital native comfortable on social media, a former chief executive of diverse city, and a bit of a life coach to a state party searching for traction in a state where every statewide and congressional office is held by Democrats.

“My name is Erin Stewart, and I’m going to beat Ned Lamont in November. I’m going to tell you how, and I’m going to tell you why. We have to have a little bit more confidence in ourselves. Let’s start that again,” she said, her voice louder. “We’re going to beat Ned Lamont …”

Cheers drowned out the next few words.

“… building confidence within ourselves that something’s got to change, something has to give. We have to do something differently, and we are going to kick Ned Lamont to the curb. Eight years of him is far too much.”

The daughter of a retired firefighter who also served as mayor of New Britain, Stewart sounded a populist note, separating herself from Lamont and her two Republican rivals, all of whom live in Greenwich.

“I’m not a trust fund baby,” Stewart said. “I might be the only one in this race that isn’t one.”

The line and its implicit criticism of Fazio and McCaughey fell flat.

She pressed on.

“I’m the only one that engages with a lot of people on social media. I’m sure you all have seen that. I have a little bit too much fun with that sometimes,” Stewart said. “But you know what? In one month alone, and without having to spend a dime, 3 million people in this state looked at our social media pages. That’s the type of attention that Republican Party needs in Connecticut to get everybody’s attention.”

Eight years ago, Republicans already had held four gubernatorial debates by April 4. This year, there have been none.

The Madison meet-and-mingle was organized by Connor Favre, the Republican town committee chair, and Amy Stefanowski, a former Republican state central committee member and the wife of the former two-time nominee.

“I think we’re in a different environment,” Favre said. “Not that I’m opposed to having a debate of some kind, but I think at this stage, when we’re going into the convention, not the primary, it’s good for especially delegates to meet them face to face and chat.”

And they did. Attendees, including some who had been chosen as convention delegates in the previous week, lined up to talk them after after the speeches.

“There were probably more people in the room who are delegates than those candidates have seen in one place previously,” said Ben Proto, the state GOP chair.

With a common focus on affordability, the candidates stepped lightly on national issues like immigration and vaccines.

Fazio, who has voted against revisions to the Trust Act, said he would make clear Connecticut is not a  “sanctuary state” but one more accommodating of ICE.

“If you have been convicted of manslaughter, stealing a firearm, or other felonies, you should not have the protection of this governor and this state,” he said.

Stewart sided with homeschooling parents, who are fighting state legislation that would impose oversight and standards on what is now largely unregulated, and those who object to vaccine requirements that have preserved Connecticut’s high rate of vaccinations and the herd immunity that comes with that.

But she suggested litmus tests would be unproductive.

“We’re going to respect homeschoolers. We’re going to not do vaccine mandates. We’re going to repeal the housing laws. We’re going to do all of these things and then some,” Stewart said. “But you can’t do it if you don’t win.”

So far, the rest of the statewide GOP ticket is largely uncontested. Several down-ballot candidates briefly addressed the crowd of about 150: Matt Corey, lieutenant governor; Peter Lumaj, secretary of the state; Jen Tooker, comptroller; and Fred Wilms, treasurer.

The only mention of Trump came from Lumaj. It was a joking reference to Lumaj’s claimed common ground with billionaire Elon Musk: Like him, Lumaj is an immigrant to the U.S.

“Both he and I love Donald Trump,” Lumaj said. “And both he and I can be deported by Donald Trump.”

It got laughs.

He turned serious, warning against internal division.

“We need to be united. Let’s go to the convention. Let’s go to the primary,” he said. “In the end, no matter who makes the primary, get with me behind him or her.”

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

Senate Bill 515 was voted out of the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee Monday, 34-20 with Republicans opposing it. It now goes for consideration by the legislature.

The bill directs the Office of Policy and Management to create a plan for “a workforce and productivity gap surcharge on employers to recapture lost revenue from displaced employees while providing a permanent tax exemption for increased productivity achieved through the augmentation of a stable workforce using collaborative technology.”

CT state comptroller warns of AI bubble and impact on ‘regular people’

Sen. John Fonfara, a Hartford Democrat who co-chairs the committee, introduced the bill before the vote, saying that while his initial thought on the issue was the loss of state revenue, his concern is more for workers and their families.

“At a high level we all know that we can not get through a day today without hearing the two letters that are most prominent in the dictionary these days, AI, and that while it seems to be futuristic, I personally believe it is not. I believe it is already impacting our economy and maybe for the better right now but at some point it could be anything but.

“This initiative is not about discouraging companies from advancing, using technology — by no means. … This is about cognitive displacement and the real likelihood that artificial intelligence could render many folks in this very room unnecessary, as scary as that might be and should be.”

Fonfara said the issue is a grave one with implications that will likely see AI replacing workers in the next decade.

“I don’t know what that means for society in general. I don’t know what that means for the worth of the individual and their family.”

‘AI hallucinations’ case lands in hands of CT high court. Lawyers used computer generated details.

But Republicans on the committee said the bill would harm Connecticut businesses.

Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Greenwich Republican on the committee who is running for governor, voted against the bill. Fazio said instead of taxing companies for their use of technology, the state should aim to make its “workforce more productive with higher wages and more jobs than ever before” through its labor rules and tax policy.

“I fear that if we impose a new tax on job creators or businesses, that at the end of the day we’re going to see fewer jobs than otherwise.”

State Rep. Dave Rutigliano, a Trumbull Republican, echoed Fazio, saying that the business climate in Connecticut in some cases is forcing businesses toward technology.

“Some of this stuff that’s going to happen has been imposed by the state of Connecticut. We are raising costs on certain businesses so much that they’re going to have to adapt or die. So I don’t think we can just look at this in a vacuum of AI, which I may share your perspective on it, but there’s more to it than that,” he said.

Rep. Nicole Karides-Ditria, a Seymour Republican, said the bill would “fund the future by penalizing progress.”

Christopher Davis, vice president of public policy for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, said SB 515 takes “a fundamentally flawed approach” by “taxing increased productivity.”

“By linking a surcharge to changes in revenue, payroll, and workforce metrics, the bill effectively punishes employers for becoming more efficient—even when those gains are driven by investments in technology, process improvements, or capital upgrades,” Davis wrote in testimony.

“Connecticut employers must continually invest in new tools, automation, and collaborative technologies to remain viable. Senate Bill 515 creates uncertainty around how those investments will be evaluated and taxed, discouraging businesses from pursuing efficiency improvements that would otherwise benefit workers and consumers alike.”

Neither Daniel O’Keefe, commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development, nor Dr. Kelli-Marie Vallieres, the state’s chief workforce officer, offered criticism of the proposal. Both noted that funding to enable it was not included in the governor’s budget.

Vallieres, of the Office of Workforce Strategy, cited “the rapid expansion of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) intelligence in the workforce” and lauded the bill’s intent.

“Unfortunately, funding for the development and implementation of this plan was not included in the Governor’s Budget, so resources would need to be identified for this to move forward,” she said in written testimony. “OWS appreciates the intent of this bill and looks forward to the continued discussion on how to best protect the workforce while supporting the growth of our state.”

And the $6 million shortfall Scanlon is tracking, roughly equal to 1/40^th of 1% of the $27.2 billion budget’s General Fund, wouldn’t exist if the state still followed the pre-2017 budget rules.

Those laws bar the comptroller from counting more than $1.8 billion in income and business tax receipts that a special savings program withholds from the budget.

Those funds can be used after the fiscal year ends on June 30 to close any operating deficit. But since Lamont took office in 2019, those saved dollars have been used to build reserves and pay down pension debt.

The administration downplayed the shortfall and insisted state finances remain robust, but Republican legislative leaders said the governor and his fellow Democrats in the General Assembly’s majority have abandoned honest budgeting.

“Thanks to the progress we’ve made, the governor and legislature have numerous ways to address this small gap,” Scanlon said. Besides $1.8 billion in the income and business tax savings program, Connecticut holds a record-setting $4.3 billion in its emergency reserve, commonly known as the rainy day fund.

Together, those resources could close the projected $6 million surplus 1,000 times over.

Lamont’s budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said Connecticut remains in a fiscally strong position, even as other states struggle.

“We’ve continued to build up our historic rainy day fund, while still making meaningful investments in education, infrastructure and public safety,” Collibee said. “Under Ned Lamont’s leadership, Connecticut has consistently ended the year with surpluses — not deficits — and that discipline is paying off. We’re going to stay focused, keep a close eye on the budget, and make sure we continue moving Connecticut forward on the strong path we’re on.”

Legislators built a modest 1% cushion of about $300 million into this year’s General Fund, and income and sales tax receipts have come in hundreds of millions higher than expected.

But, Scanlon noted, the budget was weakened by federal policy changes.

Connecticut links its state corporate tax system to the federal code, as do several other states. And since Congress and President Donald Trump last July extended federal corporate tax breaks that had been set to expire, Connecticut’s taxes on big business have come in $352 million below projections.

But that’s only part of the problem. Lamont and the legislature also failed to budget adequately for certain legal obligations.

One is Medicaid, a federal entitlement program run in partnership with states. That means it’s pointless for Connecticut to budget less for Medicaid than the projected demand, because federal rules stipulate all patients who qualify for health care assistance are entitled to it.

But Medicaid demand has remained greater than pre-pandemic levels, even though enhanced federal health care funds ordered in response to COVID expired in 2023.

Lamont’s budget staff projects the state Department of Social Services will overspend its $3.7 billion Medicaid line item by $85 million this fiscal year. The department overspent on Medicaid by more than $300 million last year and almost $160 million two fiscal years ago.

A second legal obligation pushing state finances into the red involves health benefits pledged to retired state workers.

Both the governor and General Assembly ignored Scanlon’s warnings one year ago to budget more for retiree health care.

When Lamont projected nearly two weeks ago that state finances still were on pace for a razor-thin $33 million operating surplus, that report ignored Scanlon’s estimate that the retiree health care was shy by $39 million.

The legislature’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis agreed last Friday that the retiree health care costs and other problems create a small deficit projection.

“Our health care costs are growing, as they are for every state and every health care plan in the United States of America,” Scanlon said Wednesday. “I have tried to very clearly state those challenges … and to ask [the governor and legislators] to reflect what we believe is coming in the budget.”

Scanlon added, “I’ll let them answer for why they have not done that.”

Budget proposals from Lamont and from the legislature’s Appropriations Committee both underfunded retiree health care by roughly $90 million, based on the comptroller’s projected needs.

Many of Lamont’s fellow Democrats in the legislature’s majority argue Connecticut’s budget caps are too strict, siphoning too much money from core programs.

Republican lawmakers, who have been more supportive of the caps, say the governor and Democratic legislators simply are ignoring legal obligations rather than making cuts that would be tougher to defend politically.

The GOP has said Connecticut could reduce spending by trimming raises for state employees, finding more efficiencies at public colleges and universities, further shrinking agency staff and eliminating Medicaid eligibility for undocumented residents.

Underfunding of Medicaid and retiree health care together totals more than $120 million this fiscal year. Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford and Stephen Harding of Brookfield, said the scope of the budget problems being ignored is getting dangerously large.

“We’re not only raiding couch cushions now, we’re raiding under the mattress,” said Candelora.

“I think we’ve been playing funny math on our own budgets for years now,” Harding added.

Democrats counter that, in many years, at least one of the minority caucuses has failed to even create a balanced budget proposal, preferring to criticize without showing how it would solve tough problems.

Both Candelora and Harding said this week their caucuses would deliver a budget proposal for the next fiscal year before the regular 2026 General Assembly session ends on May 6.

Lawmakers are now considering legislation that would require public higher education institutions to provide “an on-campus problem gambling program at least once each academic year,” according to an analysis of SB 381.

“This bill is a good first step to addressing the issue and getting students the help they need,” said Sen. Derek Slap, co-chair of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and a West Hartford Democrat in an email. “The massive expansion of sports betting is creating real problems — not just on college campuses, but especially on college campuses. I fully expect we will need to do more than this bill to adequately combat it.”

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee passed SB 381 in a 17 to 1 vote.

Diana Goode, executive director of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, said in her testimony that the bill is a “practical, prevention-focused policy that strengthens student support systems without imposing unnecessary administrative burdens.

“It ensures that gambling-related harm is addressed proactively, just as campuses already address substance use, mental health, and suicide prevention,” she said. “The need for this legislation is clear and data driven.”

Goode wrote in her testimony that “sports betting has rapidly become one of the most significant gambling-related risks facing college campuses.

“National research from the National Collegiate Athletic Association indicates that sports wagering is widespread among college-age populations, with surveys finding that 67% of students living on campus report placing sports bets, and many do so at higher frequency than their non-student peers,” Goode said.

Goode said that “public health researchers warn that this normalization of sports betting can contribute to financial stress, academic disruption, and mental-health concerns among students, while also creating pressure and harassment toward student-athletes tied to gambling outcomes.”

Nathan Hirschfeld, a college student at Wesleyan University, wrote in his testimony that “as a college student this is my reality.

“I cannot count how many times I have seen friends lose thousands of dollars on parlays and isolate themselves, not only succumbing to the financial burden of gambling addiction but the mental deterioration and academic decline as well,” he said. “Thousands of students in our state struggle with this issue, and it shows up in missed classes, drained bank accounts, damaged friendships, and declining mental health. It’s also important to consider how other people, like student athletes, are affected by gambling problems as well. They should not be reduced to statistics over a lost bet.”

Haritha Subramanian, vice president of the undergraduate student government at UConn, said in a text message she is “concerned with the increase in gambling opportunities, given that it is now easily accessible 24/7 on mobile devices and individuals can gamble on just about anything.

“I have seen students casually speak about gambling, particularly sports betting and I worry about the normalization of gambling culture and the lack of adequate regulation surrounding these gambling programs,” she said.

Chuck Bunnell, chief of staff to the Mohegan Tribe, wrote in his testimony that “The Mohegan Tribe supports this legislation because it reflects a shared understanding that problem gambling is a serious issue and that education, early intervention, and collaboration are essential tools in addressing it.”

The bill now heads to the Senate.

Hwang’s decision leaves open two Republican seats in Fairfield County districts that will be a challenge for the GOP to hold, providing an opportunity for Democrats, who hold a 25-11 majority, to shrink the minority to single digits for the first time since the post-Watergate election of 1974.

President Donald Trump’s domination of Republican politics has coincided with the collapse of the GOP as a competitor for control of the Connecticut General Assembly, beginning with the midterm election of 2018.

In January 2017, Republicans began Trump’s first term in the White House with an 18-18 tie in the Connecticut Senate and only four seats shy of a majority in the 151-member Connecticut House.

Successive elections have been disastrous. Early polling indicates that Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, his trade wars and more recently his actual war on Iran make for a difficult midterm election for the GOP.

“The current climate makes it very difficult for a moderate, common-sense Connecticut Republican to either get through a primary or win in a general election,” said Brenda Kupchick, the former first selectwoman of Fairfield.

Kupchick, a Republican who also served in the House when Republicans rebounded from steep losses during Barack Obama’s win in 2008, said she will not seek the GOP nomination.

Amybeth Laroche of Newtown, a conservative Board of Finance member, is the only declared Republican candidate in a district generally dominated by its largest community, Fairfield. She could not be reached.

Laroche, a guest in the House chamber during Gov. Ned Lamont’s State of the State address on the opening day of the 2026 session in February, joined a handful of Republican lawmakers in walking out in protest of the governor’s criticism of federal immigrant agents’ training and tactics.

“I will not  stay  silent while those who serve and protect our communities are disrespected,” she wrote on Instagram.

Rob Blanchard of Fairfield, the Democrat who lost to Hwang two years ago, said Tuesday he intends to open a campaign for the Democratic nomination this week. He is planning to resign as communications director for Gov. Ned Lamont and join the governor’s reelection campaign.

Dan Rock, a member of the Fairfield Board of Finance, also is seeking the Democratic nomination.

The other open Republican seat in Fairfield County is the 36th Senate seat of Greenwich, New Canaan and Stamford that Democrats flipped in 2018. Sen. Ryan  Fazio, R-Greenwich, recaptured it in a special election five years ago, but he is running for governor, not reelection.

The best Republican chances for maintaining their numbers in the Senate may lie outside Fairfield County, the source of the greatest wealth in Connecticut and formerly the GOP’s most reliable base.

Republicans are expected to focus on flipping seats narrowly won two years ago in the northeast corner by Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Windham, a six-term senator, and in the Farmington Valley by a freshman, Sen. Paul Honig, D-Harwinton.

Flexer faces a rematch in the 29th Senate District with Republican Chris Reddy of Scotland. She beat narrowly beat him two years ago, 49.8% to 48.4%, with a minor-party candidate also on the ballot.

The district includes Mansfield, the home of the University of Connecticut and the source of young voters who have used same-day voter registration to Flexer’s advantage, as well as smaller rural communities that lean Republican.

Honig unseated Republican Lisa Seminara of Avon two years ago with 50.2% of the vote in the 8th Senate District, an 11-town district dominated by Avon, Canton and Simsbury.

Harwinton First Selectman Michael Criss is seeking the Republican nomination. Andrew Ziemba of Canton, who had filed for the race, withdrew Friday and has endorsed Criss.

Two Democrats also are not seeking reelection: Sen. Jan Hochadel of Meriden and Sen. Ceci Maher of Wilton. Their districts favor Democrats.

Hwang did not return a call for comment Tuesday, but Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, confirmed that Hwang informed the caucus of his decision not to run.

He was elected to the House in 2008 and to the Senate in 2014. Ubiquitous at public events in his district, Hwang had prevailed as the country trended Democratic.

But he had gathered enemies in the GOP over his supposed deliberate distance from others in the party.

Amid a special election for first selectman of Fairfield that Hwang lost this year, Tim Herbst, the former Republican first selectman of Trumbull and a candidate for governor in 2018, wrote an opinion piece deeming Hwang too self-centered to be fit for running a town.

“Tony Hwang does not financially support other Republican candidates, nor does he meaningfully assist those on his own team,” Herbst wrote. “He treats public office like a personal branding exercise, routinely appearing at public events wearing clothing emblazoned with his own name, as if he were promoting a personal clothing line. It may seem like a small thing, but it perfectly captures a larger problem: for him, it is always about the spotlight.”

Hwang was the only Senate Republican to vote in February for emergency legislation, Senate Bill 298, that spend through the General Assembly without vetting by committees or at public hearings. Other Republicans complained it was an abuse of process by  the Democrats.

In 2016, Hwang campaigned for John Kasich and against Trump in the Republican presidential primary in Connecticut.

He frequently broke with other Republicans on climate and environmental issues. He joined Lamont at a press conference in 2023 celebrating the publication of proposed regulations ensuring Connecticut would continue to meet evolving California standards for passenger-car emissions, a commitment made 20 years ago during the administration of a Republican governor, John G. Rowland.

“Clean air is critical, and it’s a non-partisan issue,” Hwang said then.

That assertion was suspect. While other measures have generated broader support, Hwang was the only Republican legislator to vote in 2022 for passage of the Connecticut Clean Air Act.

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

The effort, put forward this month as part of a recently filed land-conveyance bill, would force Connecticut’s Department of Administrative Services to hand over ownership of the Torrington transfer station to the Northwest Resource Recovery Authority for no more than the cost of paperwork and other administrative expenses related to the transaction.

If successful, the bill would also require the NRRA — an arm of the Northwest Hills Council of Governments — to operate the transfer station in perpetuity, as a public facility for handling municipal waste. The facility currently only accepts trash from municipalities, not individual residents.

The state has been operating the transfer station through DAS since last year, when lawmakers quietly inserted language into the budget blocking the sale of the facility to a private company, Enfield-based USA Waste and Recycling. Earlier this year, DAS said it would cease operations at the facility as of June 30, at which point funding would no longer be available to subsidize the cost of the station’s tipping fees.

Or — as lawmakers are now proposing — it could hand the facility over to NRRA.

Leigh Appleby, a spokesman for the agency, said in an email last week that the administrative costs of land conveyances “tend to be very low, if anything.”

“We continue to work with local officials and legislators on next steps for the Torrington property, and this proposal is a potential step forward,” Appleby said.

The bill is backed by a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers representing towns in the Litchfield Hills, who described the NRRA as part of a broader effort to regionalize public services that has proven popular and cost-effective for residents. Five members of the delegation jointly submitted testimony in favor of the conveyance on Tuesday.

“The conveyance of this critical regional facility to the NRRA will preserve municipal access to a publicly owned transfer station and help maintain competitive, stable pricing for solid waste disposal,” the testimony read.

The legislation, Senate Bill 521, is schedule for a public hearing Wednesday.

But the existence of a competing offer from USA Waste to pay $3.25 million to purchase the facility has complicated the NRRA’s efforts, as well as the long-term outlook for trash disposal in the region.

Frank Antonacci, the chief executive of USA Waste, has sought to build support for his company’s bid to purchase the property by offering local towns 10-year contracts that he estimates will save them between $8 to $10 for every ton of trash handled at the transfer station.

And without state funds subsidizing the cost of tipping fees, the transfer station’s rates could rise, Antonacci said.

“If they were able to do it cheaper than the market, they would come right out and say that,” Antonacci said. “They don’t say that anywhere… the silence is deafening on what their rates will be.”

Supporters of the so-called public option, however, argue that USA Waste’s offer would effectively consolidate much of the region’s waste-disposal business with a single company. Once the company’s initial contracts expire, they say, USA Waste would be able to dictate much higher prices that would get passed along to residents.

Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, who is among the members of the delegation supporting the bill, said town officials “don’t want to end up in a situation where you have just one for-profit organization taking care of all the hauling in the area, and not being able to negotiate with anyone else for reduced tipping fees.”

The NRRA, which came into existence last year, does not have the staff nor the budget to compete with USA Waste’s offer, necessitating the bill to give the property away for a nominal fee. The authority received a $350,000 grant from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection last year to ramp up its operations.

For the time being, the work of the authority is being led by Rista Malanca, the director of economic and community development at the Northwest Hills COG. Malanca could not be reached for comment this week regarding the conveyance bill.

Another potential wrinkle in the fight for control of the facility is the interest of political leaders in Hartford, where the trash collected at the Torrington transfer station was, for many years, shipped to be burned at the Materials Innovation Recycling Authority’s waste-to-energy plant.

When MIRA ceased operations in 2022, that kicked off the process of selling the authority’s other assets, including the Torrington transfer station.

Under the original terms of the proposal to sell the facility to USA Waste, the $3.25 million in proceeds from that sale were supposed to have been directed to help pay for the cleanup of the MIRA property in the city’s South Meadows. Antonacci — the owner of USA Waste — said the money his company is offering should still go to fund that effort, which is projected to cost somewhere between $48 million and $334 million.

But Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam said Tuesday there is no longer a mechanism in place to ensure that any money from the sale of the Torrington property would go toward the eventual cleanup of the South Meadows.

“Essentially, we have no interest in the current sale of that property,” Arulampalam said. “I mean, taxpayers of Connecticut would be taking a haircut on the [NRRA] deal, but it wouldn’t directly impact Hartford.”

This change, which would begin in 2027 and generate about $260 million per year, is likely to draw strong opposition from Lamont, a wealthy Greenwich businessman and fiscal moderate who consistently has said such tax hikes would prompt the state’s biggest taxpayers to flee the state.

But many of the governor’s fellow Democrats in the legislature and progressive advocacy groups counter that Connecticut should secure more funding to safeguard programs against dramatically shrinking federal aid.

State finances have closed with an average of more than $1.8 billion unspent — a tally that represents 8% to 9% of the General Fund — since aggressive budget caps were created in 2017.

But Congress and President Donald Trump ordered cuts to federal human services and education programs expected to total about $1 trillion by 2034. Connecticut officials expect the state to lose hundreds of millions in Medicaid assistance from Washington next fiscal year.

Lamont isn’t alone in opposing such a tax hike, though. Other moderate Democrats and the House and Senate Republican minorities also have argued against them.

“I don’t think that we have a revenue problem in the state of Connecticut. I think we have a spending problem,” said Rep. Joe Polletta of Watertown, ranking House Republican on the finance committee.

“If we raise taxes on investment and income, we’re going to get less of it, less investment in Connecticut, less work in Connecticut, and we will see those taxpayers ultimately leave,” Fazio added.

But Rep. Jason Doucette, D-Manchester, said the proposal stems from inequity.

Connecticut’s last tax fairness study, in February 2024, showed state and municipal taxes effectively consumed 39.9% of the earnings of Connecticut’s poorest 10% of households in 2020. At the same time, middle-income households lost 11.5% to 13% while the highest-earning decile effectively paid 7.3%, or less than one-fifth the rate of the poorest.

“Our revenue system here in the state is, in fact, regressive in that the less you make, the more you pay as a percentage of your income overall in state and local taxes,” he said.

Keith M. Phaneuf is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Under Kennedy’s leadership, the federal agency has overhauled the committee that issues vaccine recommendations and amended longstanding guidance for childhood immunizations. However, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued an order in late March temporarily blocking every major vaccine policy change made in the last year.

Gov. Ned Lamont has a proposal this session — House Bill 5044 — that would expand Connecticut’s authority over vaccine policy. He said it’s meant “to speak clearly on the importance of vaccines” amid “mixed messages” from the federal government. The Public Health Committee has also raised an identical Senate bill.

“We are going with the traditional vaccination schedule. It’s been endorsed by all those medical groups. No politics. Let’s follow the lead of medical science,” Lamont said during an interview with The Connecticut Mirror.

Here’s what you need to know.

What has been proposed?

Both bills would expand the power of Connecticut’s public health commissioner to establish vaccine recommendations for adults and would require state-regulated insurance plans to cover the cost of all state-recommended shots.

As of now, the Department of Public Health commissioner can issue vaccine recommendations — or a “standard of care” — for children. This legislation would allow the commissioner to issue guidance for adults, as well. But DPH Commissioner Manisha Juthani has insisted these are just recommendations, not mandates.

The proposal would also allow DPH more flexibility in how it can source vaccines. Current statute only allows the state to purchase doses from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that have been recommended by the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

In testimony to the legislature, Juthani said that, historically, the arrangement didn’t pose a problem because “ACIP and DPH schedules have been consistent.” But, given “recent divergence in recommendations, Connecticut must ensure continued access to vaccines by authorizing DPH to purchase vaccines based on the state standard of care,” Juthani said, adding that neighboring states have already begun contracting with alternative suppliers.

Vaccines are a ‘hot topic’ for CT pediatricians. Why they are for legislators and many parents too.

What are opponents of the proposal saying?

The bills drew a swell of opposition during a public hearing earlier this month.

Opponents said that establishing a “standard of care” could make it difficult for someone who doesn’t want to get all the recommended vaccines to find a doctor or keep a job, even though the state doesn’t mean for its guidance to be a mandate. They also see a “standard of care” as a slippery slope toward full-blown mandates.

A measure related to religious exemptions for vaccines also drew heated criticism.

In 2021, the legislature voted to eliminate religious exemptions from vaccines in schools. But, a state law on the books — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA — could pose a potential conflict to that move. The proposal under consideration seeks to clarify that RFRA, which protects religious liberties, does not apply to vaccine requirements.

Even though the measure wouldn’t introduce new restrictions on religious exemptions, critics see the RFRA carve-out for vaccines could set a dangerous precedent for weakening religious protections in other areas.

The Public Health Committee passed both proposals earlier this month. The bills would need House and Senate approval to become law.

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

Both Democrats and Republicans are backing a wide-ranging bill to improve training for correction officers, create medical positions in the correction ombudsman’s office, repay student loans for nurses who are working in the prisons, ensure that medications are administered properly, order an audit on the nutrition of prison food, and create a medical and health oversight board, among others.

Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican, is deeply concerned as he represents a district that includes multiple prisons in Somers, Suffield, and Enfield.

“It is extremely disconcerting and troubling to hear about the deaths of inmates,” said Kissel, citing the most recent death on March 22 in Somers. “This gentleman was just in his 40s. When people go in for a short bid, a short number of years, it’s not a death sentence. And yet in the last few years, we’ve seen a lot of people dying in the Department of Corrections. It’s not because of the pandemic or anything else like that. Troubling.”

A longtime supporter of the department and its correction officers, Kissel delivered public criticism that was relatively rare for him.

“It’s got to change,” said Kissel, a senator since 1993. “We’ve got to move this along because the Department of Corrections – I hate to say it, but I’ve got to say it – has got to get its act together. I’ve been watching this department over the years, and it’s not at its best right now. It’s poorly staffed. It doesn’t seem to have a rudder. The health care provision has not gotten better with time. So please, Department of Corrections, take care of your most senior inmates.”

State Rep. Steven Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat who co-chairs the legislature’s judiciary committee, said the legislature must take action now because of a variety of problems.

“Probably most concerning, we hear repeated stories about how routine medication is not delivered to individuals on a daily basis,” Stafstrom said, citing common concerns like high cholesterol and blood pressure. “I don’t profess to say this is going to solve all those problems. It won’t. But it is a first attempt at some legislative action to try to provide better oversight, to try to get to the root cause of some of the issues we’re seeing. … I suspect we will be back again next session [in 2027], but we cannot let the session go by without doing anything.”

State Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking House Republican on the judiciary committee, said he was taken aback when he learned about the latest death of a 45-year-old man on March 22 at the Osborn prison.

“It sort of shakes you to the core,” Fishbein said. “‘Why’ is the question I haven’t heard the answer to.”

Fixing the situation, he said, is paramount for thousands of inmates and families across the state.

“I’ve had family members that have been incarcerated for a couple of decades,” Fishbein said. “We’ve got to get it right.”

Rep. Greg Howard, a Republican who also works as a police detective in his hometown of Stonington, said the state employees need help from the legislature.

“We can’t sit here and demoralize an entire group of people in the state of Connecticut that are doing probably one of the most difficult jobs that we ask anybody in this state to do,” Howard said. “I’m not saying that there aren’t bad correction officers. There’s bad everything. There’s bad legislators. There’s bad cops. There’s bad teachers. But I think, on the whole, the department and the members of the department want to serve their people well. So, I just wanted to say that.”

Despite the concerns, some Republicans, like Fishbein and Howard, voted against the bill, saying it still needs more work before the legislative session adjourns on May 6. The measure, known as House Bill 5567, was passed 30-6 by the judiciary committee, which has jurisdiction over the prisons. The bill now requires approval by the state House of Representatives and Senate in the coming weeks.

Lamont response

The Department of Corrections declined to comment on the pending bill, but said that the deaths are being investigated by the department’s security division. While the cause of death is still being determined in some cases, a department spokesman said, “Of the nine deaths, it appears that as many as four of the individuals may have died from natural causes.”

Lamont’s chief spokesman, Rob Blanchard, said the administration is closely following the issue.

“No one should die in prison from preventable illness or inadequate care,” Blanchard said. “Under Governor Lamont, DOC has strengthened oversight, improved training and medication management, and increased accountability. The administration will continue working with DOC, the legislature, and independent partners to strengthen health care systems, set clear standards, and prevent unnecessary deaths while protecting the dignity of everyone in custody.”

Lamont’s budget office is studying the issue and submitted detailed testimony to the judiciary committee.

“Potential clinical enhancements currently being scrutinized with health providers include highly specific health care staffing targeted by shift and location; centrally coordinated management of in-patient hospital resources; on-site mobile delivery of services such as dentistry, cardiology” and other specialties, Daniel Karpowitz, Lamont’s criminal justice policy undersecretary, said in written testimony to the committee. “Telehealth options for primary care, mental and behavioral health; value-based bundled contracts for defined services tied to quality of care; and continued planning for Medicaid inclusion … waiver efforts that focus intensely on continuity of care and re-entry transitions.”

Health concerns

Compared to the general population that is much healthier, prisoners have a wide variety of physical and mental health problems.

State statistics show that the share of inmates with mental health and medical issues have both been increasing, along with the population over the age of 50. The aging population reached 2,735 inmates in late June 2025, compared to 1,981 prisoners in January 2023.

Those with acute medical concerns increased to 4,316 in June 2025, up from the previous 3,288. Prisoners with acute mental health problems increased to 3,712 in June 2025, up from the previous 3,247.

A key report in 2023 by the state’s sentencing commission reported that 41% of prisoners overall have a history of mental health problems. The numbers were higher among women, with more than 85% of the inmates at the all-female York Correctional Institution having mental health disorders rated at mild to severe. Among men, 28% had active mental health disorders.

Among prisoners, 8% had psychotic disorders, compared to less than 1% of the general population, the report said. About 24% of prisoners had mood disorders, compared to about 10% of the general population.

The report also found that 89% of prisoners had “a history of or current substance abuse problem.” Overall, 95% had either a history of mental health and substance abuse problems or active mental health and substance abuse problems that required treatment.

Prisoner deaths

Some of the most recent deaths, according to prison officials, have included:

On March 22, Craig Whyte, 45, of New Haven, was found unresponsive in his cell at the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers. While conducting a routine check, a prison guard found Whyte in his cell at about 1:30 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon, officials said. Whyte was taken by ambulance to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The cause of death in the case of Whyte and others will be determined by the chief medical examiner’s office, which can often take six weeks or more due to toxicology tests.

On March 12, Christopher Root, 29, of Old Saybrook was found lying near a pool of vomit in his cell at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield. He had been held on bond of $1.5 million after being charged with first-degree strangulation.

On Feb. 6, Clemente Giusto, 50, of Bridgeport was found unresponsive in his cell at the high-security Garner Correctional Institution in Newtown. He had been in and out of the hospital recently, including in mid-January before being discharged. He was then hospitalized only two days later and was eventually released again on Feb. 5. Only four hours after arriving back at prison, Giusto was found unresponsive and was later pronounced dead. He was awaiting trial after being charged with criminal violation of a protective order.

On Feb. 1, Andry Desmond, 32, was found unresponsive in his cell in Newtown and died later. Desmond was among the best-known inmates in the state because he was convicted of an assault of state Rep Maryam Khan of Windsor during an incident outside the former XL Center in Hartford in June 2023. He pleaded guilty to first-degree strangulation, attempted third-degree sexual assault, and risk of injury to a minor for the attack before being sentenced to five years in prison.

Also on Feb. 1, Noe Taveras, 40, of Florida was found unresponsive in his cell at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield. He had been in prison since 2010, and he was serving 30 years in prison after being convicted of first-degree manslaughter. His death was ruled a suicide, according to the chief medical examiner’s office.

On Dec. 4, Jaishon Bellamy, 27, of East Hartford was found unresponsive in an apparent suicide at the MacDougall-Walker Institution in Suffield. He had been serving a 20-year sentence since 2015 on charges of first-degree sexual assault and attempted murder after prosecutors said he tried to kill two women in East Hartford. He was found with a bedsheet around his neck, officials said.

While nine inmates have died since Jan. 1, seven have died in less than a two-month period starting on Febr. 1, officials said. Three of the five inmates died within one week.

The legislature, Fishbein said, is being forced to take action because the corrections department has not solved its problems.

“We shouldn’t have to do this bill,” Fishbein said.

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com 

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney sponsored the bill, SB 436, along with Sen. Martha Marx, and in written testimony praised the bill as providing needed stability for hourly workers.

“This would greatly improve the quality of life for shift workers who currently have little control over their own schedules and can be left in a nearly impossible scramble to make arrangements for child-care and other matters,” Looney said.

Similar bills were raised in previous sessions but failed to pass. This year’s bill was voted out of the Labor and Public Employees Committee and referred for the Senate calendar.

The bill would cover certain retail and hospitality businesses, chain restaurants and long-term care facilities. It would require such employers to consider an employee’s desired work schedule and number of weekly hours and to provide employees with a written estimated schedule prior to employment.

The bill also includes fines and compensation for schedule changes and canceled shifts.

For example, “An employer shall provide … One-half of such employee’s regular rate of pay per hour for each scheduled hour the employee does not work when the employer: (A) Subtracts hours from the employee’s work shift before or after such employee reports to work; (B) Cancels the employee’s regular shift; or (C) Changes the date, start or end time or location of an employee’s 123 regular or on-call shift, resulting in a loss of hours.”

Connecticut Labor Commissioner Dante Bartolomeo summarized the bill, saying “SB 436 would prohibit on-call shift scheduling in certain industries and occupations, therefore providing certainty and reliability to workers who have personal responsibilities outside of their employment.”

Sarah Ganong, state director of the Working Families Party, said the committee has heard from workers on the need for changes in work scheduling for years.

“When parents and caregivers’ incomes are unstable, families struggle to meet basic expenses and to arrange child care, doctor’s appointments, or family meals,” she said. “Families suffer when working people have highly variable hours and no voice in their work schedules. As a result, they struggle to spend enough time with their children and spouses while simultaneously feeling stressed and out of control in the workplace.”

Ganong also praised a provision in the bill that would require employers to offer existing employees additional hours before hiring more employees.

“Senate Bill 436 would also address the harmful practice of under-scheduling, where many employers refuse to give workers full time hours that would help qualify workers for health care and benefits,” she said. “Instead, they hire several part timers and over-schedule them, sometimes cutting their shifts at the last minute. When a need for additional offers becomes available, they decide to hire another part timer instead of offering those hours to its current base of employees. Many of them want the extra hours, but they are denied the opportunity.”

But labor and industry groups, including the Connecticut Business and Industry Association and the Connecticut Restaurant and Hospitality Association, oppose the bill, saying employers in the included industries require flexibility in staffing.

Scott Dolch, president of the CRHA, in written testimony said his group represents more than 9,000 restaurant locations and nearly 400 hotel properties, with tens of thousands of employees. Dolch said that while the bill targets national companies, it will harm small local owners.

“Many restaurants and hotels operating under national brands in Connecticut are independently owned and operated by local franchisees and small business owners who live and work in our communities. Some of these operators employ fewer than 30 total employees, but would still fall under this legislation simply because the broader brand exceeds the bill’s thresholds for locations or employees globally. As written, this proposal would unintentionally sweep in many small Connecticut businesses,” Dolch said.

In addition, he said, many employees choose food and hospitality jobs due to their flexible scheduling.

“More broadly, the bill fails to recognize the operational realities of the hospitality industry. Restaurants and hotels operate in environments that are dynamic and often unpredictable,” he said. “Guest reservations change, private events are added or canceled, weather impacts travel and dining patterns, and employees occasionally need last-minute schedule adjustments. In hotels, occupancy levels can shift rapidly based on conferences, tourism demand, or travel disruptions. In restaurants, demand can fluctuate significantly from one day to the next.”

Paul Amarone of CBIA called the bill’s demands “unrealistic” and noted it opens businesses up to “extensive litigation exposure” and could “encourage costly litigation.”

“At a time when Connecticut businesses are already facing workforce shortages, rising labor costs, and increasing regulatory complexity, policies that restrict operational flexibility and increase compliance burdens would reduce employment opportunities and increase costs for consumers,” he said.

Connecticut Voices for Children offered testimony in favor of the bill on behalf of workers in early childhood education, calling on-call shift scheduling a factor in the state’s slow economic growth and likely to disqualify some workers from SNAP nutrition benefits after HR1 takes effect.

Unpredictable scheduling “contributes to Connecticut’s lagging job growth, personal income growth, and economic output growth compared to the U.S. as a whole,” Advocacy Director Nick Teeling wrote for the agency. “What’s more, the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) ushered in new, rigorous work requirements for recipients of SNAP and soon to be mirrored for recipients of Medicaid.

“These work requirements place a greater emphasis on workers having predictable, transparent schedules to ensure they are meeting the requirements outlined in OBBBA and their eligibility for these benefits is not inadvertently impacted due to unpredictable scheduling practices by employers.”