Media Attache

An Ethical Dilemma.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Even the most devout observer of state government probably doesn’t recognize the name of Priscilla Dickman, but her case raises serious questions about ethics in government and how best to pursue purity.

Dickman is a former medical technologist with the University of Connecticut Health Center who ended up on trial in September before the four year old, reconstituted, Office of State Ethics. She stands accused of using state office equipment, including her e-mail account, to conduct personal business on state time. She admits she did so, but argues - so did just about everyone else she worked with and questions why she has been singled out for special punishment.

During the month of September, Dickman’s trial before the ethics panel was regular nightly viewing on CTN – Connecticut’s version of C-SPAN. While I never watched a full episode of this particular reality show I did see enough to conclude that something had gone terribly awry with the system. Right there, on cable TV, I watched as hundreds of state employee man hours and thousands of dollars in attorney fees spiraled down the drain in pursuit of what exactly? A world where no Connecticut taxpayer need ever fear that a state employee might misuse an e-mail account? Capital felony cases are settled with less litigation than the Dickman matter.

To be fair to the prosecution (which is difficult for me), Ms. Dickman was not accused of simply using her state e-mail to check on her family, or order a new fleece from L.L. Bean. She is accused of conducting work related to a part time jewelry business. Even stipulating to the serious charges against her – taking an order for gold loop earrings without a license – isn’t this the kind of infraction that could have and should have been dealt with by her managers at the UCONN Health Center? My own answer to my own rhetorical question is: Yes.

Setting aside the misuse of office equipment and e-mail accounts, if Dickman, or any other state employee, is wasting time – at the expense of the taxpayer – on activities not related to her state job, then that employee should be disciplined and perhaps even dismissed from state employment. There is no need for a trial here.

Defenders of the process will argue that principles are at stake. If the ethics commission were to look the other way in this matter it would send the wrong message. The right thing to do is pursue the case, regardless of expense, so every state employee knows the potential consequences of crossing the line. Defenders of process often wage their battles at the peril of common sense and the Dickman case appears to be the perfect example.

Ms. Dickman has admitted that she used state equipment on state time for non work related purposes. Her defense is “so does everyone else.” In the four year history of the new ethics office this is the first case that has gone to trial. All others have been settled in what amounts to a plea bargain. What went wrong here?

Former congressman Chris Shays once said, when it comes to ethics in government we tend to swallow elephants and choke on flies. I may have the wildlife wrong, but you get the point. After ten years of high profile corruption cases in Connecticut, we have a heightened interest in making clear our devotion to strong ethics, but that devotion can lead to its own perversions. We should use any review of the Dickman case to learn how to swat the flies and so we can focus on elephants.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Editor's Note: The photo of the State Supreme Court has nothing to do with the Dickman case other than the fact that most agree it is a symbol of justice.

Editor's Note - Moving On.Org.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:24:00 +0000

By now you may have heard (The Laurel).

My wife and I are moving to Washington D.C.

She landed a great job there and in a few weeks we will relocate from Connecticut and I will begin my search for a new job and possibly a new career. It will potentially be my fourth career since graduating college.

It means that after a few weeks off from daily blogging, I will draw the curtain fully on Media Attache by the end of the month. I have two more Hartford Business Journal columns scheduled to publish in the next two weeks and after that I have to concentrate on selling our house, finding a new place to live in Washington (which I am going to try to avoid calling "D.C.") and finding that next career.

I have been blogging since 2006 and I have enjoyed it. Except for a few breaks, I posted almost every weekday and worked under the general rule that it shouldn't take me more than 45 minutes any given morning. Because if you let it, blogging can take up way too much time.

I'd like to thank everyone who checked in on a daily basis, commented, gave me news tips or gave me private encouragement to keep it up.

By the way - every once in a while someone asks me where I got the name for this blog. Here's the story. I was being interviewed once by a reporter based in London and at the end of the interview he asked me, in his British accent, if my title was "media attache?" I said, "No, but I really like the way that sounds and someday I'm going to find a way to use it." And so I did.

If I return to the world of blogging - I'll find a way to let you know. In the meantime, I'll keep this site live as a good place to archive more than three years worth of HBJ columns.

Thank you again for supporting this effort.

~ Dean Pagani

HBJ - Never Mind.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:00:00 +0000

As the 2010 campaign season approaches, candidates for the legislature and statewide office face a difficult decision about how to pay for their campaigns. The relatively new public financing system is – as a practical matter – on pause at a critical moment in the campaign cycle.

The problem is especially difficult for candidates running for governor who can’t be sure whether the public campaign money they are working toward qualifying for will be available to them next year, or if they will be forced at the last minute to switch gears and begin raising money from private sources.

Earlier this year, a federal court judge struck down Connecticut’s new campaign finance law and declared it unconstitutional. His main concern was how the system treated minor party candidates. He said it gave an unfair advantage to candidates endorsed by the Democratic and Republican parties. The judge’s original ruling ordered an immediate halt to the new system, but that order was put on hold pending an appeal by the state.

It should come as no surprise that campaign finance reforms written by incumbents who are members of the two major parties would give an advantage to major party candidates, but there it is. The decision came as a big surprise to the authors of the legislation. The Connecticut political class – still betting that posing as ethics puritans is popular with the voters – has launched an all out appeal effort.

The legislature isn’t sure what to do. The Government, Administration and Elections Committee held an informational forum at the end of October and decided there are no good options. The legislature could meet quickly and try to address the concerns raised by the federal court ruling, but there is no guarantee they’d get it right. Another option is to wait for the appeal process to take its course, but that could take until the middle of next year and throw the entire campaign season into turmoil as candidates scramble for cash.

It appears obvious that the drafters of Connecticut’s public finance law knew they were laying out a questionable course, because they included what is called a “reversion clause.” In plain language it says; if someone challenges this new law and we can’t fix it by April of 2010 we will go back to the old way of doing things. Candidates will have to raise campaign money on their own under the law as it existed in 2005. It should have been named the “never mind clause.”

It is generally believed that a credible campaign for governor in Connecticut requires about $4 - $6 million. That’s why under the public financing system, qualifying candidates can access up to $5 million for the primary and the general election. Changes in how campaigns are run may have already made that number too small, but even if it is enough, there is no time left to raise it by pre-2005 means.

For the last five years, Democratic and Republican operatives have debated whether it makes sense for a candidate for governor to use the public financing system, or risk scorn by raising campaign money through private sources. Shame has forced most to conclude they have no choice but to “volunteer” to accept public funds.

Experience demonstrates that it takes at least eighteen months to raise $5 million one donor at a time. Now, with less than a year to go before the election, the future of the new system is in doubt, giving any candidate who wants to ensure he can compete a good reason and a solid defense to forgo public financing.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Small Change.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:30:00 +0000

Although differences between the Bush administration’s foreign policy and the views of candidate Barack Obama defined the presidential campaign of 2008, it is difficult to see much difference between the two now that Obama is in charge.

Particularly with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ten months into the new administration there has been little change. President Obama is drawing down forces in Iraq, but that policy had been put in place before he took office. Despite a growing sense that the war in Afghanistan is going nowhere, there are no signs the new president intends to withdraw U.S. troops there – in fact – it appears he plans to increase troop levels as part of his campaign promise to finish the job.

Slowly, the new administration is moving toward closing the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that has been used since September 11 to hold detainees captured during the Bush war on terror. As it turns out, there is no easy answer to where to put the prisoners held there. They are trapped in a zone that puts them between the civilian criminal justice system and the standards applied to prisoners of war. There is no rush to settle the matter.

While Obama’s honeymoon on domestic policy issues ended several months ago, he is fully exploiting an extended honeymoon in the area of defense policy. In some cases, he has actually been more aggressive than Bush in executing the previous administration’s policies.

In addition to the troop build up in Afghanistan, the president has quietly, but frequently authorized drone attacks on terrorist targets in Pakistan. During the summer, he authorized a U.S. Navy rescue of a cargo ship captain being held by pirates.

The most dramatic expression of the Obama military policy came in mid-September when U.S. special forces, operating off of Navy ships, staged a helicopter ambush on a senior al-Qaeda leader in Somalia. Several helicopters attacked a convoy of armed vehicles, destroyed them, killed the primary target, landed on the road, collected the body for identification and seized two surviving members of the group for questioning. Reports said several days of tracking took place before the successful mission.

It is hard not to read this intense military activity as anything but an escalation of the strategies first put in place by the Bush administration. Even though the number of U.S. causalities in Afghanistan has increased in the last ten months, the American people seem comfortable with the overall policy. As the president campaigns for his domestic agenda the military campaigns move forward quietly – out of plain view.

There has been no effort by the Obama administration to harvest political points from its battlefield advances. As an extension of his personality, Obama seems to believe being tough without flaunting it, sends a more potent message to our adversaries than landing a jet on an aircraft carrier, or taking some other form of victory lap.

Obama has signaled his respect for the professionalism of the armed forces through his willingness to authorize the strategic use of force and his resistance to the need to take credit when all goes well.

The similarity between the Bush war on terror and Obama’s approach remains. It leaves you to wonder what Obama has learned since taking office about the nature of the threats against this country? What has he seen, or learned, that has led him to conclude President Bush had few options to choose from? And what has led Obama to make the same choices. For now, the major military difference between the two presidents is style, not substance.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Death on Cable.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:17:00 +0000

We don’t wait for anything anymore, not even death. And we certainly don’t waste any time thinking about what is next once someone is gone.

In the 21st century, life is fast paced. I remember reading an essay in college by a 19th century writer who was opposed to the railroad because he couldn’t imagine why anyone would want to, or have the need, to travel at speeds of 10 miles per hour or more. What would he think of the world we live in today where an emerging problem is texting while driving?

Nowhere is our fast paced lifestyle more evident than in the world of cable news where the need to discuss what is happening is always pushing up against the constraints of real time. The need to break the next part of the story often kicks common courtesy to the curb.

I first noticed this uncomfortable situation in 2006 when South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage in the middle of the afternoon at the Capitol. Although the news media had no solid information on why he had been rushed to the hospital and barely any on his general condition, within two hours of the emergency, news anchors were asking political reporters about how his successor would be picked, who the likely candidates might be and how Johnson’s death would affect the balance of power in the U.S. Senate and the president’s agenda.

Today, Tim Johnson is very much alive and as his website says, is “Working for South Dakota.”

Johnson is not the first public figure to be spoken of in the past tense prematurely, but he’s the one who got my attention, because in his case all pretenses of the courtesies surrounding someone’s illness or death were dropped. At the exact moment he was introduced to a national audience as the senator suffering “stroke like symptoms” his replacement was being sought.

Jumping forward to the brain cancer diagnosis of Senator Ted Kennedy, the inevitable was contemplated at the speed of light. For fifteen months there was talk of how the Senate would function without its most well known member. Kennedy himself jumped ahead on the life/death time continuum by writing the governor about changing the law so an interim successor could be named before the special election. If the soon to be departed himself is willing to talk about it, why should the rest of us hold back? Thus began a very public debate over how the still living Kennedy should be replaced.

It can’t be stopped at this point. We can’t turn back the evolution of how we talk about death and politics. It’s just the way it is and if you are uncomfortable; you need to get over it.

There’s another aspect of cable news and death that has the power to change history. The death of any public figure becomes an instant reality TV mini-series - broadcast live. But in the one remaining nod to old school courtesy no one ever speaks ill of the dead during these tele-dramas.
From Ronald Reagan, to Anna Nicole Smith, to Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy - it’s all tragedy and greatness all the time. When it’s all over, the video is packaged and sold as a DVD boxed set, with any controversy removed to make for more enjoyable viewing.

It’s just worth noting that there was a time when we waited for someone to actually die before we plotted life without them. We would even wait a week after the funeral just to be polite.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Deference.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:30:00 +0000

With all due deference to seniority in public office, recent events have me thinking more about the value of term limits. The issue comes to mind as the Connecticut political world waits while Senator Chris Dodd and Governor Jodi Rell decide whether they will once again seek the nomination of their parties to run again for the offices they currently hold.

Tradition usually dictates that if an incumbent wants to run for re-election, all other candidates stand aside to avoid an intra-party fight for the nomination. In the last fifty years, that has been the standard in Connecticut with three notable exceptions, on the Democratic side, that probably changed history.

A challenge by Lieutenant Governor Robert Killian against Ella Grasso led to her re-election and the ten year administration of Governor William O’Neill. A 1990 challenge by former Congressman Bruce Morrison to O’Neill, led in part to the election of Lowell Weicker. The third, was the 2006 challenge by Ned Lamont to Joseph Lieberman which led to Lieberman’s election as an independent.

This kind of unsportsmanlike conduct in politics should probably be encouraged rather than discouraged in the name of competition. The practice of granting deference to the incumbent has the practical effect of making the officeholder almost unbeatable. Incumbency comes very close to ownership.

Campaigns consume at least a year, depending on the office. If an incumbent faces no challenge for his party’s nomination, while the other side is locked in a long internal battle, the incumbent almost always emerges with a clear path to victory. The possibility that the Republican candidates will destroy each other, over the next year, is the one obvious factor that keeps Senator Dodd in the race despite his low approval ratings.

Once a public office is considered a “safe seat” it’s probably time for a change and the rules should allow for it. Term limits enacted through law are one way to go, but another way to limit years in office would be for the parties themselves to enact rules that allow for no more than one free pass to renomination. This is of course unlikely since the role of the party is to win elections by putting forth the strongest candidate.

Senator Ted Kennedy served Massachusetts for 46 years. Can it be that there was no other candidate, from either party, who would have done as well, if not better, for at least half that time? Were his ideas always the best? Did he really represent the views of his constituents the entire time?

State Senator George “Doc” Gunther was the longest serving member of the Connecticut Senate – serving into his 80’s. I was once told that he was the kind of incumbent that could knock on every door in his district the day before the election, make an obscene gesture to whoever answered the door and still get re-elected by a landslide the next day.

That’s great for Senator Gunther and the many public servants like him, but you have to question whether it is good for the state and the nation as a whole.

Keep in mind that elected public service is not supposed to be like every other job. You shouldn’t start young and retire old. You should start a bit later, after gaining some life experience that can be shared, and leave while you still have the energy to work at an uncommon pace.

I admit that certain benefits might be derived from the quirky nature of institutional memory, but on the other hand, good ideas and new leadership should not be forced to wait because of tradition.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Thanks, but No Thanks.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:30:00 +0000

On June 12 of this year, right after the end of the regular legislative session and just before the end of the fiscal year, a group of eight Connecticut business leaders wrote to the governor and the legislature, begging to be given a chance to help end the budget stalemate and plan for the future. They were essentially ignored.

Now, all that is left of their grand plan to stop Connecticut’s politicians from allowing the state’s economy to drive off a cliff, is a lonely blue underlined link on the website of the MetroHartford Alliance. It’s a sad little link just waiting for someone to click it.

If you do, you get a pretty easy to read three and a half page letter signed by the leaders of eight regional chambers of commerce (including the three largest) laying out their principles for settling the still simmering state budget crisis and building a better foundation for the state’s economy.

You have heard most of the ideas before, but what the letter really offers the political leadership is the cover it needs to enact reforms. The chamber presidents offer to convene a public/private sector group that won’t be afraid to tell it like it is and produce a report focused on “results based governance” free of a “sacred cow bias.”

In other words, the business group is willing to tell the voters what needs to be done to salvage the state’s economy without regard to how the public might react to it. Private sector leaders don’t need to worry about how the voters feel about bold ideas. Theoretically, legislators and the governor would then accept the findings, turn the recommendations into legislation and vote it up or down. If the solutions were politically unpopular they could tell the voters, “We didn’t want to do it, but we were told we had to if we wanted to prevent a disaster.” It’s a corollary to the “too big to fail” strategy.

There is another aspect to the business leaders’ initiative that is politically important. It offers to wrap up all the necessary changes under one umbrella. When it comes to the legislative process, it’s easier to get votes that way.

For instance, you may remember Governor Rell’s pledge at the start of the session to end the wasteful “bloat of bureaucracy.” It was great use of alliteration, but as presented, it never had a chance. The governor’s approach was to list each spending cut she was proposing line by line. You can’t get support for spending cuts that way, because each line item has a constituency with the votes to save it.

If the governor had packaged her spending cuts and some tax increases as the “Government Reform Initiative” she would have had a better chance. Everyone is willing to vote for “reform” – no one is willing to vote against individual programs, or for specific tax increases.

Even without the establishment of a task force, the business leaders who have asked to be part of a solution, have put together a wide ranging list of issues that must be solved simultaneously “over the next five to seven years.” It’s a reform package addressing labor costs, privatization of state services, regionalization, healthcare, transportation and tax policy. It deserves more attention than the stone silence it has met so far.

The crisis continues. The business group is not going away. The state’s political leadership should respond to this offer of help, because the way to build an economy and create jobs is to start by listening to those who do it for a living.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - The Pause That Refreshes.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:30:00 +0000

Fatigue appears to be the ultimate winner in this year’s debate over the Connecticut state budget. In the end, it was the dread of further pain that led Governor Jodi Rell to definitively end her long stalemate with legislative Democrats.

On one level she can’t be criticized for that. I’ve been talking about and writing about the state budget situation since 2007, when the current crisis began. I’m tired of doing both, but as the late journalist David Brinkley once said, “If you’re covering a football game and a fight breaks out on the fifty yard line, you don’t turn your cameras to the end zone.”

In the context of the state budget, Brinkley’s observation means you don’t turn away from the most important issue facing the future of Connecticut, just because it’s boring or tiresome.

It’s not so much the budget itself that is so important, it’s all the issues that are tied directly to it. As we witnessed for ourselves in early September, you can get a budget – which is really nothing more than a plan – in less than 24 hours, if you are willing to set everything aside in favor of making a deal. And perhaps that decision was made in the best interest of the state as the governor argued.

A budget is a dry, technical reflection of what we feel is important. The cold numbers shaded by the political process it takes to produce them. In the case of the 2009 budget however, the evidence suggests we have not decided what is important, because all we did was find a way to put off the homework assignment.

This is the time of year legislators, the administration, special interests and the press begin looking ahead to the start of the next legislative session. It doesn’t require any heavy thinking this year, because 2010 will really be no more than a special session called to finish a job left undone.

By relying on one time sources of revenue, including federal stimulus dollars and the Rainy Day Fund, we have built a structural deficit into the current spending plan of at least $2 to $3 billion. Some believe the problem is much deeper. Governor Rell has predicted declining state tax revenues will probably force her to cut spending on her own, before the legislature returns and some legislative staffers are predicting the need for a special session by December. That’s how bad it is from the pure logistical view of how a budget is agreed to and implemented.

The real world consequences are less noticeable. As state government refuses to address systemic problems, there is no progress on policies that would make Connecticut more business friendly and create jobs. Little progress is made on basic redefinitions of the role of government in providing aid to those who rely on social programs to provide a quality of life that meets minimum standards.

For many, it is not surprising that Connecticut state government leaders lacked the resolve to tackle the fiscal crisis they were faced with in 2009. The stunning distance by which they fell short however is frightening; because of the political predicament it creates for them and ultimately us.

Traditionally, tough political decisions – like raising taxes and cutting spending – are dealt with in non-election years. 2010 is a major election year in Connecticut including a statewide race for governor. It is hard to imagine that the current crop of incumbents will suddenly rise to the occasion as they face an even greater fiscal crisis next year.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Time Off.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:00 +0000

I'll be taking a sabbatical from blogging for the next couple of weeks - a sabblogtical.

In the meantime, I will continue to post my Hartford Business Journal column here on Monday mornings.

Thank you for your loyal readership and I'll see you soon.

Image: Courtesy of The Real Story.

HBJ - Republican Primary.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:00:00 +0000

With at least five candidates in the running for next year’s Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, each has a legitimate path to victory. For the first time in more than twenty years, observers of all political persuasions see a possibility for a Republican to win a U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut. The best shot for many of them is a multi-candidate primary. And that’s why, with thirteen months to go before Election Day, a primary is all but certain.

It’s bad news for Rob Simmons, the former congressman from Stonington, who under normal circumstances would be considered the clear front runner. More people know him than any of the other candidates, he does better in polling against incumbent Chris Dodd and in the first full quarter of fundraising for this campaign, he has easily outraised his fellow Republicans. It’s why insiders in Washington are quietly backing him as they try hard to appear neutral.

The log in the road to Simmons’ victory lies in the fact that if one, or more, of the GOP candidates can win enough support at a statewide convention to force a primary, he may find himself in the same situation Joe Lieberman found himself in against Ned Lamont. Yes, he might look like the guy to win the general election, but the party faithful – a much smaller block of voters concerned about a narrow band of issues - may choose someone else. If there’s a three or four way primary, it gets even worse for Simmons, because the nomination would then be won by the candidate with a percentage of the vote that does not necessarily exceed fifty percent. He could lose.

In such a contest, state Senator Sam Caligiuri may have a decent shot at pulling off an upset. He and Simmons are the only two candidates currently out working the Republican crowd that will decide the nomination. Despite the fundraising disadvantage, Caligiuri is currently the default choice for active Republicans if Simmons should stumble. He and Simmons are the most conventional candidates.

There are three wildcards in the race. Tom Foley, the former ambassador to Ireland, Peter Schiff, a financial expert popular with bloggers and hard core fiscal conservatives and former WWE executive Linda McMahon. All bring loads of money to the campaign. Foley, through his fundraising connections and McMahon through personal wealth. Schiff is also believed to be ready to use his own money if necessary. Could substantial spending by any one of them buy the nomination? None are well known at this stage. It is difficult to predict whether Republicans with just one great shot at victory would gamble on candidates who have never been tested in a campaign. It seems unlikely.

Pragmatists in the party are still leaning toward Simmons. Again they argue that he has the strength to win the nomination and begin a general election campaign the next day. Supporters of Caligiuri argue whoever wins the nomination will have the automatic support of Republicans nationwide - so Simmons has no real advantage in November.

Hidden in all this Republican zeal to defeat Senator Dodd may be the seeds of his re-election. As Republicans battle it out, Dodd will be using his own campaign funds to rehabilitate his image and maybe even take a few bites out of the support for his challengers.

If the election were held today, the latest public opinion polls suggest it is time for a change. Can Republicans keep it that way, or will an intra-party battle help Dodd convince the voters that it is time to stay the course?

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Fall Prevention.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:00:00 +0000

In the final hours of this year’s budget debate, Republicans and ultimately Governor Jodi Rell, targeted a line item titled “seniors fall prevention program” as wasteful spending.

I have to admit that when you hear the concept for the first time, without explanation, it sounds kind of comical and futile. Seniors fall. It’s a fact of life. Are we really going to spend money trying to prevent the unavoidable?

The line item would have cost $1 million over the next two years. In the scope of a nearly $38 billion budget – it’s spare change, but as a symbol of wasteful government spending it works. The problem is mainly the title. If the program had been called the “Help for the Aged Fund,” or the “One Dollar Can Save a Life Fund,” it would have had a long healthy life as a permanent part of the state budget. Whoever put this idea forward had too much faith in common sense as a part of public policy.

The truth is; for every million dollars we spend in preventing falls we probably save millions more in healthcare costs for the elderly. If your elderly parent falls and breaks a bone they end up in the emergency room – one of the highest cost delivery systems in healthcare. If they fall and break a hip they might go from the emergency room, to surgery, to a rehabilitation center to a nursing home.

Hundreds of elderly Connecticut residents take tumbles every year and each one can result in anything from a small bruise to a healthcare bill – that we all pay – worth tens of thousands of dollars. So the fiscally conservative approach to the fall prevention program is not to mock it and kill it, but to fund it.

The loss of the fall prevention program is not going to balance the state budget and it is certainly not going to change the course of history. It does illuminate a larger point. The more we spend on prevention in healthcare, the healthier we all are and the more money we save down the road.

Regardless of what you think about a government run healthcare system there is no disputing the fact that a general policy shift toward prevention would save millions in Connecticut and billions nationwide. In fact, much of the savings contemplated in the president’s healthcare initiative comes from prevention oriented care.

How do we get people to have regular annual physicals? How do we keep people from using the emergency room as a primary care center? How do we get them to stop smoking instead of relying on them to smoke so that we can tax them on their way to death? The same emphasis needs to be placed on mental healthcare as a way to prevent more serious illness and reduce healthcare expenditures. Progress in each of these areas – and many more – would result in real quantifiable savings. For fiscal conservatives out there it’s called “a win-win.”

The bad news is Connecticut’s political leadership wasted most of this year in a budget stalemate that leaves us with nothing but bigger problems to face in the coming months. No one had the courage to make the argument – and vote for a plan – that said now is the time to fundamentally change how we are doing things. The good news is, in the face of a structural deficit that is potentially as high as $3 billion, there may now be no other choice than to look at the world from a new perspective and the logical place to begin is healthcare.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - The Story Behind the Veto.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:00:00 +0000

What conclusions can be reached as a result of this year’s string of vetoes from Governor Jodi Rell?

If the governor and legislature are working well together there should be little need for a governor to resort to a veto. If all sides are talking, the House and Senate waste little time on bills they know will never become law and there should be few surprises for the governor as the final flood of legislation crosses her desk in the early weeks of summer.

The first conclusion that can be reached about 2009 is that the relationship is more confrontational than normal. Beginning with the budget, there’s been a general lack of communication. For weeks, Governor Rell taunted Democrats to send her a budget, but refused – except in the most general terms – to explain what kind of budget she might be likely to sign. Once that dance was over – the communication began.

Similarly, on healthcare, Democrats seemed set on using their super majority power to see how far they could get regardless of the governor’s opposition. Although Democrats technically have the votes to over-ride a veto in both chambers, as a practical matter, the Senate is a different story. At least five to six Democrats cannot be counted to vote with their caucus. If just one sides with Republicans the ability to over-ride is lost.

With that knowledge, Democratic leaders were reluctant to press hard on their own agenda. There were no Nancy Pelosi type calls for a Democratic revolution as the session got underway. Still, the higher than normal veto count suggests Democrats were eager to push a bit more than usual.

We also learned a lot about Governor Rell’s style of governing. She is a strict constructionist as it turns out. She believes in the legislative process and the literal description of how a bill becomes law. The governor proposes and the legislature disposes. Particularly on the budget, Rell’s behavior suggests she believed her job was done after she presented her proposal during the first week of February. After that, it was in the legislature’s hands. She made no special effort to reach a compromise solution, despite the fact that Democrats readily admitted the spending plan produced by the usual legislative committee process had no chance of winning her approval.

No, she wanted the legislature to vote, because the rules say that’s how it works. At one point in late February, the governor actually said – with exasperation in her voice – “I presented a budget – now it’s the legislature’s turn.” It takes deep faith in the process to adhere strictly to procedure in the face of the financial crisis the state finds itself in.

The approach of House Speaker Chris Donovan and Senate leader Don Williams is similar. When the state entered the new fiscal year without a budget they did not protest at all when the governor issued an executive order to keep things running on her terms. The legislature is supposed to approve all appropriations. They too seemed to rely on process to produce a solution. None seem to understand a process is nothing without someone driving it.

Finally, Governor Rell’s vetoes say something about her vision of government as a force for change. Her reasons for vetoing legislation fell into two general categories; we don’t have the money, or if it’s not broken don’t fix it. If you assume those concepts reflect her management principles, it means she views her job only as maintaining the status quo. She intends to leave Connecticut government no different than she found it – after adjusting for inflation.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Technology Ready Jobs.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:00:00 +0000

A few months back, as the economy was tanking and politicians here and in Washington were looking to take action, a great deal of emphasis was placed on government spending for “shovel ready” projects. Shovel ready projects are public works projects that have been designed and in some cases put to bid, but have been held up by a lack of funding.

They are attractive to politicians because they provide an opportunity to show government in action. We pass a bill today and we are building a highway ramp tomorrow. That’s service.

Everyone was on board with the idea, but as we look back now, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the long term. The near collapse of the economy did not begin in the construction industry. It started in the housing market and the financial sector. People losing jobs as a result of the economic turmoil held white collar jobs and if they ever used a shovel it was on the weekends in the garden. Probably one of those shiny Smith and Hawken shovels that you wash off after each use.

Yes, it’s true, billions were also pumped in to bailout banks and the auto industry. The emphasis on building an economic sector around energy savings is also important, but the 1930’s style public works approach seems out-dated.

In almost every town in Connecticut you can find a small stone or concrete bridge stamped with the letters W.P.A. – Works Progress Administration. They are one legacy of the make work infrastructure program of the Great Depression that helped improve transportation in, what was then, a more rural America. It made sense in terms of where the country needed to go, but in the world economy of today there are no roads. Infrastructure spending is a necessity, but it is not a way out of the ditch.

It seems, as we move forward, there should be more emphasis on “technology ready” jobs – which means the investment should be in advanced education, system upgrade and research. Technology is the little stone bridge of this century.

Nothing against manual labor or construction, but that work will always be around whenever needed and if we ever become so affluent, as a state, that no one in Connecticut knows how to use a shovel, we can import workers from places like Rhode Island, or maybe even Montana.

The shovel ready approach also seems to place too much reliance on the federal government to bail us out and not enough emphasis on making our own way. Federal government’s big stick when it comes to helping us out of a jam is the ability to print money. The default response to any economic crisis is; take this money and spend it.

Connecticut can use the current economic downturn to make its own way. Despite the last eight months, we are still positioned, better than most states, to lead in the areas of insurance and financial services. Healthcare, energy technology and precision manufacturing are also promising industries to nurture.

What can we do to keep the business sectors we have thriving and how can we attract new ones by providing the incentives that make Connecticut the place to be? It’s the two part question policy makers should be asking now and taking action on as soon as possible. The question has been asked before and the answers are generally known. When times get tough many in politics seek to punish business by raising taxes, or going after profits. If we are thinking of our own future, we should be rolling out the red carpet.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Rowland Reforms?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Five years after the resignation of Governor John Rowland set off an orgy of ethics reforms there are signs that the pendulum is swinging back. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because despite arguments I have made previously about the need to set higher standards, it is also true that some of the reforms put in place post-Rowland targeted the wrong problems.

The need to look tough on ethics was unavoidable as Governor Jodi Rell took office. When she took the oath, she decried the “culture of corruption” that had infested state government and pledged to clean it up. Faces grew red in the crowd that day since many of the people there had served in the Rowland administration and would now serve in hers. If they were part of a culture of corruption then what about Rell herself?

Setting that uncomfortable question aside Rell and the legislature put in place a series of reactionary reforms. The Ethics Commission was abolished and re-constituted when firing a few problem employees would have done the job. New contracting standards were put in place that have proved so restrictive some agencies have had trouble getting contractors to bid on state projects. Lobbyists were unofficially declared “bad people” even though the right to petition our government is fundamental.

The biggest reform of all was the institution of public campaign financing. Advocates of public financing lobbied for years for the change and always failed until they were able to use the environment created by the impeachment proceedings to make their cause a political necessity.

Recent developments point to a recognition that the post-Rowland reforms may have missed the point. There is the controversy created when the new ethics commission tried to force a group of Catholics to register as lobbyists, because they took part in a rally at the Capitol. After an opinion from the attorney general, the panel backed down. There is no doubt the Catholic church lobbies, but not every group of Catholics motivated to speak out needs a license to do so. In this case, the quest for purity was corrupted by a bureaucratic devotion to consistency. The itch to register everyone who expresses an opinion as a lobbyist goes too far.

Another milestone came during a June budget debate when Represenative John “Corky” Mazurek – a Democrat – offered an amendment to use $60 million set aside to finance political campaigns to help balance the budget. Corky’s quirky calculation would have been considered political suicide five years ago, but this year it was hard to argue against such a common sense idea.

As Representative Arthur O’Neill pointed out, there was no evidence the old campaign finance system had anything to do with the corruption surrounding Rowland. He would know, since he served as the co-chair of the committee established to consider Rowland’s impeachment. No one disputed O’Neill’s argument, because the passage of the public financing system was an over-reaction that will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars every two years for the foreseeable future.

The greatest irony is that none of the post Rowland reforms have ended the ethical lapses. Governor Rell herself was caught in two mini-scandals involving fundraising during her 2006 campaign and the two major cases currently making headlines involve one senator’s mis-management of his political action committee and another who forged documents in an effort to access those clean public funds.

There is still work to be done on ethics in state government, but much of the work done to date has been a solution to problems that did not exist.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Photo: Chris Yarborough

HBJ - The Defenders.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:00:00 +0000

There’s an old saying, used by lawyers, that when the facts are on your side you argue the merits, but when the facts are against you - you argue over the rules. That honest view of strategy continues to come to mind as I watch partisans on the Democratic side come to the defense of Senator Chris Dodd.

I have been surprised and a few times shocked by what I am hearing from otherwise fair-minded people as the news media and Dodd’s opponents sink into the ethically exposed under belly of Dodd’s life in public service.

The defense has two lines of attack that can be summed up as either; “it was only a technical violation” or shoot the messenger. What’s equally surprising to me is that these tactics seem to work, at least temporarily, with the news media. I have my doubts they will work long term, because they offer only momentary diversion from the truth.

A few months back, one Dodd defender attempted to diminish the accusations being made against the senator by noting most of the critical reporting came from a single reporter with Republican leanings. Even if that was the case, it has no relevance, if the questions being raised by that one reporter are legitimate issues. It is not unusual for one reporter to take up and run with a story no one else in the media is pursuing. Eventually, if the story line has merit, other news organizations pick up the cause as well. That’s what has happened in the Dodd case.

Another defender claimed the press corps has gotten lazy in the Dodd case, latching onto initial reports and repeating them regardless of their accuracy. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that premise. So what? Charges and accusations against public figures are often repeated in the news media regardless of the substance behind them. Most campaigns are full of such half truths. The test of a winning candidate is his ability to defend against them based on the merits not based on crying foul. Seniority does not protect Senator Dodd from being roughed up in the political arena.

Still others have blamed all Senator Dodd’s problems on Republicans. Imagine that; Republicans trying to gain political advantage by questioning Dodd’s record in public? Democrats would never stoop to such levels. Grow up.

The most astounding defense I have seen was not a defense of Chris Dodd, but a defense of his father Tom, in a Newsweek article. A well known Connecticut Democrat, who is equally well known for his belief in strong ethics, excused the behavior that led to the elder Dodd’s censure by saying; he was behind on a few mortgage payments so he used some of his campaign funds to make ends meet. A technicality, a petty violation. Wow, I guess it is equally true that where you stand on ethics has a lot to do with who you are sitting with at the moment.

The final weapon in the arsenal of Dodd defenders is the seniority argument. It is telling that this one is being used so early, because it is usually reserved for the final weeks of a campaign, when it looks as if the long time incumbent is about to lose. We are being warned that if we vote for someone other than Dodd, because of some perceived ethical issues, Connecticut will suffer. There is no pork for purists.

The Dodd team is not used to being challenged on the merits. Their emphasis on arguing over the rules is an early sign of a losing campaign.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Interview - Gary LeBeau.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Two weeks ago, long time state legislator (1991), Senator Gary LeBeau (D) formed an exploratory committee for governor. In this interview he explains the reasons behind his decision to run and in his first answer offers a very personal look at how a health scare pushed him to think about what matters.

DP: I suppose every legislator thinks about running for governor. What made you decide to pull the trigger?

LeBeau: Two years ago I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. Almost a year later, doctors told me that I didn’t have that horrible disease. During the year that I thought I had the disease, I gave a lot of thought to the meaning of my life. It came down to service to others and trying to make life a little better for many. As I look around our state, I concluded that our future quality of life depends on developing high tech and high value-added jobs. Yet, after 10 years of working toward this goal as chair of the legislative Commerce Committee, I became increasingly frustrated with the current administration’s lack of a coherent and consistent economic plan for the State. We are not upgrading our infrastructure, changing our tax policies, prudently directing investments. Only a governor who is elected on a platform to implement an economic vision can make this vision a reality. Becoming Governor is the culmination of my life's work -- to succeed in helping the State unite behind a vision of economically rebuilding Connecticut.

DP: I know you think you can do a better job than Governor Rell, but what makes you feel you are also better for the job than the candidates already in the field on the Democratic side?

LeBeau: A "new face" but with deep experience. My passion, sincerity, likeability and accessibility. A demonstrated ability to work with business and labor and a variety of interests and groups. My 10 years working on economic and job development – the single, critical issue facing Connecticut – makes me the stronger choice for Governor.

DP: Do you sense that Connecticut Democrats are searching for an alternative to Mayor Malloy and Susan Bysiewicz – the perceived front runners?

LeBeau: Yes, I hear this as I go around the state. The other candidates are not generating a lot of enthusiasm. There is some sense of "politics as usual" surrounding them. It is part of the reason we have a campaign, to allow the voters the opportunity to "kick the tires" and get a better sense of who we are as people and what our priorities are. In the end, they will conclude that I am the choice that will lead Connecticut to a new economic future.

DP: The way things are going, it appears the budget crisis of 2009 will roll into 2010 and still be a major issue for whoever is governor in 2011. How do you campaign in such an environment since politically unpopular spending cuts and tax increases will almost certainly continue to be part of the way out?

LeBeau: People deserve straight talk from their Governor. Jodi Rell demonstrated a total lack of candor and leadership throughout this budget crisis. Budget negotiations occurring two months after the fiscal year began -- working towards a final compromise and a budget -- should have started last November or December when it was clear how significant the budget deficit was. Rather than level with the people and work toward a common solution Rell engaged in politics, trying to label Democrats in particular as tax and spend legislators. It is all theater and no political courage. From the beginning, state officials knew there would be severe program cuts, borrowing, and tax increases in the end. We could have gotten here with a lot less acting and a lot more candor and courage. I will always be candid about where we are and what we need to do to move our State forward.

DP: From left to right on the political scale where do you place yourself?

LeBeau: Labels are facile and inaccurate. I believe that we must continue to help those who need a hand up, but the best social program is a job. We cannot help those who need help if the government has no revenues, and we will have no revenues without a vibrant and strong economy. That must be our mission.

HBJ - Questionable Strategy.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Five months and three and a half weeks after she pledged to balance the budget with no new tax increases, Governor M. Jodi Rell acknowledged it can’t be done. Why did it take so long? What was the point of the exercise? All these months later it’s hard to discern the reasoning that went into the initial strategy.

In February, when she presented her budget proposal, the governor had two positions to choose from. She could be honest with everyone, explain that Connecticut was facing the most difficult fiscal crisis in state history, tell us that the only way to get back on track would be to cut spending and raise taxes, and then she could have presented a conservative plan that put a heavy emphasis on smart spending cuts and tax increases that were grounded in fairness.

The other path is the one she took. Facing a House and Senate controlled by Democrats, with veto proof margins, and looking back at the criticism she faced from her own party when she proposed an income tax increase in 2007; she decided to take a politically popular, but practically unrealistic stand against any tax increases at all. The political bet being that if she could hold to her no tax increase pledge, she would ultimately force Democrats to pass their own budget – including tax increases – over her veto. Her hands would be clean and she would be able to claim she fought for all of us on the side of no tax increases, but was unfortunately out numbered.

Immediately following her announcement that taxes would have to go up, some observers concluded she switched her position because of a recent Quinnipiac University poll showing most state residents favor higher taxes on the rich. Although Governor Rell has demonstrated an affinity for maintaining high approval ratings I doubt that had anything to do with it.

Most polling data on tax policy is useless. Of course most people favor taxing the rich, because most people don’t consider themselves rich. Tax smokers? Why not, I don’t smoke. If the choice is between spending cuts and tax increases, of course most people are going to favor spending cuts first.

Rell’s July move toward tax increases was rooted in the tactic behind her February budget proposal. In order to offer a balanced budget with no tax increases she had to purposefully underestimate the size of the projected deficit. This outraged Democrats, who felt they were being set up on the tax issue. They were right, but it was hard to get anyone to listen to the argument that Jodi Rell was being dishonest. Too many people don’t see her that way.

Ultimately, it led to passage of a bill that required the legislature and the governor to come to a consensus on the size of the budget deficit and re-submit balanced budget plans based on that estimate. It is telling that the governor vetoed the bill and the legislature had to override her veto. She had to be forced, by law, to face the truth.

Although Governor Rell still maintains some of the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country the spectacle surrounding this year’s budget certainly does not reflect well on her. She took a position against tax increases that could never be sustained in face of the problem the state is facing. That position led to a seven month stalemate, during which almost no progress was made toward fundamentally changing the size of state government. The governor’s strategy failed to deliver a well reasoned result and damaged her legacy.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Anything Is Possible.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:00:00 +0000

When people ask me whether I can meet a deadline, get the lawn cut before it rains, meet them for coffee or lunch – I respond with the same hopeful expression: “This is America, anything is possible.”

This must be the thought running through the mind of veteran state Senator Gary LeBeau as he announced the formation of an exploratory committee for governor in July. The East Hartford Democrat, who has been in the legislature since 1991, is an unlikely candidate. He has never been known as a show horse or a leader among leaders as is often the case with politicians who aspire to higher office.

Instead he has been quiet and steady, interested in his own issues, toiling away in a workmanlike fashion on behalf of his constituents. As far I can tell he has no unusually large network of friends and supporters, but neither does he have a long list of enemies.

His decision to run for governor seems rooted in the basic belief that hard work pays off and in atime of growing dissatisfaction with government, we need something more than someone who looks the part. No one who has spent almost twenty years at the Capitol can be blind to the fact that common sense rarely prevails in politics, but it is easy to imagine someone like LeBeau deciding it is worth a shot. What if a simple, middle class school teacher from East Hartford were allowed to run the state for four years? How would things be different?

LeBeau’s candidacy may also be rooted in hardcore political realism. It may be the first manifestation of public campaign financing in a statewide race. In the old world of money and campaigns, LeBeau would have no chance in 2010 against Democratic frontrunners Dan Malloy and Susan Bysiewicz. They are better known, have run statewide before and as a result, they have networks of supporters and financial backers in place.

Under the new public financing scheme, LeBeau only has to raise $250,000 to have access to the same funding as the more seasoned candidates. If he can win enough support at the party convention to qualify for a primary, he would be on a level playing field in terms of cash. He might still need to hold a 3-iron in the air for lightning to strike, but the dreamer in LeBeau must figure there’s nothing to lose.

Former House Speaker Jim Amann is still clinging to the same dream. Even though he has been badly outpaced on the fundraising side and it is difficult to find a pulse on his campaign, he insists in media interviews that the rules are different now and there’s plenty of time for him to qualify for the matching funds that he will then use to dispatch Malloy and Bysiewicz.

Yes, all this talk of Mr. Smith goes to Hartford scenarios is naïve, but at the very least, it demonstrates how public financing can attract unconventional candidates.

The other wild card worth watching is Ned Lamont. He has a well demonstrated willingness to spend his own money on politics and might decide to get into the race while foregoing public financing. He has organized supporters who are eager to use the machine they built to defeat Joe Lieberman in the 2006 senate primary. To paraphrase Rod Blagojevich, “they’ve got this thing – and it’s worth something.”

For Malloy and Bysiewicz, there are unexpected but navigable bumps in the road, like Senator LeBeau and then there are major obstacles like Lamont who can build his own road.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Bridge to Vitality.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:00:00 +0000

For years, critics of downtown Hartford have complained that the layout of the business district creates a series of islands that make it difficult to navigate as a pedestrian. All that is about to change as one final piece turns the side of the city closest to the river into a grand plaza that will connect almost directly to Main Street and the west side of downtown.

Federal funding has been secured for a bridge connecting the external esplanade of the Connecticut Convention Center with the Connecticut Science Center plaza. Once it is complete, convention visitors and everyone else, will have the ability to walk from the convention center, to the science center, directly to the river, the Old State House, The Wadsworth and other key downtown destinations. Similarly, people coming from downtown points west, will have easier access to the river, the science center and the convention center.

The scheduled completion of the convention center/science center bridge will match up almost perfectly with the completion of the long awaited Front St. project – which has devolved into a retail only development. It’s not what everyone had hoped for, but perhaps more importantly, when complete, the Front St. project will provide another connection between the convention district and the rest of downtown. The Front St. block, that has been surrounded with construction fencing for five years, will offer a walkway directly to the Municipal Building, The Wadsworth and Main Street, putting Bushnell Park and the Capitol within sight.

The expansive plaza system on the east side of the downtown business district has been historically under used. Starting with Constitution Plaza, it stretches to the Phoenix Building, toward the river and south to the Travelers Building. (It ends abruptly at the Travelers building, but soon it will open onto a wide staircase to Front St.). This vast landscape of 1960’s style concrete is used – on a limited basis - for special events and small groups of smokers who huddle near service doors a few times a day.

The elimination of various dead ends will provide employees of the insurance companies, the many other businesses with offices in the area and visitors to make better use of the space as a pedestrian walkway and a center for commerce and entertainment. The new connections offer the various owners of the plaza system an opportunity to turn it into a vital part of downtown.

Other critics of Hartford architecture have complained about an over reliance on second story walkways that keep people off the streets. While the plaza system does have that downside the combination of the Front St. development and Columbus Boulevard entries for the convention center, the Marriott, the science center and the planned AI Technical Center (former Broadcast House) will keep the street level active too.

Now the question is; how do you make the plaza system something it never has been? There is no shortage of ideas and there is no shortage of people willing to help turn vision into reality. The biggest obstacle may be expense and the fear some property owners have of unforeseen consequences - lawsuits, maintenance, operational issues.

This is no time to halt the progress. Ten years ago the east side of downtown was completely cut off from the river and a group of disconnected plazas was surrounded by huge, dusty, open air parking lots. Today, thousands of out of town visitors use the convention center every week and children and families from around the region visit the science center daily. It takes only a little imagination to keep the momentum going.

As published in the Hartford Business Jounral.

HBJ - Honeymoon.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Opinion polls in mid-June began to show the first signs of accountability being applied to the Obama administration. Most Americans still view the new president favorably, but a growing number question his policies and are looking for signs that they are working. The headlines said it best: The honeymoon is over.

Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House rode a wave of opposition to the war in Iraq. As he was taking office however, concerns about the war faded and the economy became the most important issue on the minds of Americans. This is the second time in the last ten years a new president has come to office only to have his agenda supplanted by current events. If not for the attacks of September 11th, President Bush planned a first term dominated by education, immigration and tax policy.

President Obama’s style and approach to politics is dramatically different from his predecessor. The contrast helps build up hope that change for the better is on the way. The timing of the economic meltdown, beginning in the final months of the Bush presidency, also helped.

But the Obama team may have over-played its hand in attempting to deftly blame all the problems it faced on the previous administration. Day after day, for weeks after taking office, the phrase “the problems we inherited” was delivered by the president, his press secretary and other members of the administration. It was an un-necessary reminder for the general public and began to sound like an excuse. The message sent by the overuse of the phrase became, “don’t blame us for the slow pace of change, we’re still cleaning up after the last guy.”

Obama may not have been tempted into the blame the last team strategy if he had not come almost constant attack, from the beginning, by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Many viewed Cheney’s arrival at Obama’s inauguration in a wheelchair as symbolic of a broken presidency, but it appears it was only a faint by an old political hand who was not fully prepared to leave the battlefield.

As hard as it may be to do so, the best way to handle the criticisms of Cheney and others would have been for the Obama administration to politely refuse to engage. Instead, they not only engaged, they made the next common misstep of a winning team and claimed victory at the ballot box made their policy direction the only right one. Claiming a mandate is always dangerous, but especially in times of crisis.

So early summer marked a turning point. It’s no longer enough to be “not George Bush” or the new guy. Voters are watching and waiting for results. Republicans, at first stymied by Obama’s popularity and overwhelming victory, are beginning to regain their footing. The classic debate between big and small government is re-emerging and before the new election year dawns Obama may find himself on the wrong side of the issue.

Few argued with the idea of massive government intervention to stabilize the housing market and the financial system at the time, but now the voters want to see the results in their personal finances and it’s not happening. In fact, unemployment is rising and the president has said the national unemployment rate could reach ten percent before a Main Street turn around begins.
If the public doesn’t perceive the economy to be moving in the right direction by 2010 Obama’s massive government intervention may take the blame and as unlikely as it seemed just a few months ago Democrats may pay the price in the next election.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Run Sarah Run.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Let’s think about presidential politics like baseball. There are the minor leagues and then there’s the major leagues. The minor leagues include members of congress, governors, business tycoons, big city mayors and apparently members of the Illinois legislature.

The corps of governors is one of the most productive in the minor league system producing four of the last six presidents. But not every player has big league potential. If you were putting together a list of possible candidates for president it would be quite natural to survey sitting and recent governors, but you would not put every governor on the list because they are not all qualified.

Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, fails to make the cut and I wish someone would tell her. I also wish someone would tell the news media in general, because the press seems to be engaged in a conspiracy of silence on this one. Countless columns and hours of talk shows are dedicated to Governor Palin’s most recent moves toward a 2012 run for the White House. Serious network correspondents travel to Alaska to interview her, book her on morning TV and cameras follow her every move as if she is the next Barack Obama. Her decision to resign has only added to it all.

I have to assume the blanket coverage of this potential candidate, with a thin resume, is driven by the need to be fair. Any other politician who had been selected to run on the national ticket, as a vice presidential candidate, is expected to get a shot at running for president and to take that shot. Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman – just to name a few.

The more cynical side of me thinks the press is engaged in an effort to build up Sarah Palin just to watch her come crashing down. The news media never conspires in the classic sense of a tiny group getting together behind closed doors to determine how the news is going to be covered. But news organizations and reporters do tend to run as a pack and part of the pack appears to be playing along with Palin’s taste to be a national player – feeding her ego – just enough to keep her headed toward the kill.

What separates Palin from other potential candidates is not the fact that she is a woman. There are many female candidates capable of being president. What makes Palin different is her utter lack of relevant experience and her obvious lack of familiarity with national and international issues.

Some charitably describe her manner of speaking as folksy. I prefer barely intelligible. From day one of her appearance on the national stage she has relied on a talking point approach to public policy. A fifth grader could memorize Palin’s platitudes and survive most TV interviews, but the job of president requires much more than that in terms of communication skills.

There is another troubling aspect of Palin’s public life. It seems to be all about her. She is always in a battle with someone. Her family, the state police, the liberal media, Washington and most recently David Letterman. Is it really possible that she is so often the victim if she is a leader? Or do these spats reveal a character flaw – a petty and vindictive personality – in it for herself.

So let’s start the campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination right now. I can’t wait and apparently Governor Palin can’t either. Life on the campaign trail will reveal that Palin has unique leadership skills that suit her perfectly to be governor of Alaska.

As pubished in the Hartford Business Journal.

And if you think I'm hard on Sarah, perhaps you missed Peggy Noonan's take from the Wall St. Journal last Friday.

HBJ - Death Penalty Veto.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:00:00 +0000

The super majorities held by Democrats in the state House and Senate have emboldened those majorities to enact legislation that has been left unaddressed in recent years. None is bigger than the historic vote to abolish the death penalty.

The bill cleared both chambers, after long debate and was predictably vetoed by Governor M. Jodi Rell who has always supported the death penalty. One of the first tests of Rell’s administration involved whether to intervene to stop the execution of serial killer Michael Ross after he dropped all his appeals. She declined.

The veto is another lost opportunity, because the cruel fact of Connecticut’s death penalty law is; it was written as the ultimate compromise between politicians who believe in capital punishment and others who did not, but understood the political benefits of appearing to be tough on crime. In other words, the law is a political hoax.

The late Richard Tulisano, the former long time chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee who had a major hand in writing the law, was fond of explaining how Connecticut’s death penalty was designed to make execution nearly impossible. In fact, the only execution that has taken place in Connecticut was Ross’s death by lethal injection that came after he aggressively advocated for his own execution.

At the heart of the dysfunctional law, was its original requirement that even one mitigating factor in favor of the defendant requires the judge to hand down a sentence of life in prison. In 1995, pro-death penalty forces pushed through a change allowing for the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors. It has had no impact on the number of executions in Connecticut. Even if a defendant commits a crime so heinous that he ends up on death row the appeals process has been used to indefinitely delay the carrying out of the sentence.

Most public opinion polls show people are philosophically in favor of capital punishment. But the questions put by public opinion surveys are so simplistic they are meaningless. Of course most people are in favor of eye for an eye justice just as certainly as they favor spending cuts as opposed to tax increases. Public opinion polls on the death penalty ignore the real life and societal questions that come forward through the course of a trial.

As a reporter, I covered two death penalty cases from beginning to end. One was the Ross case and the other was the case of Jerry Daniels, a Norwich man convicted of brutally stabbing to death a woman and her three year old daughter. Listening to the testimony in each case I came to the difficult conclusion that both men suffered from different degrees of mental illness. Their minds were so twisted that it was difficult to apply standard criminal motives to their behavior.

Governor Rell’s veto hangs mainly on the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent, even though she acknowledges it is difficult to prove. The governor’s argument does not dispute that the death penalty did not keep Connecticut’s death row inmates from killing, but suggests there is a group of would be killers out there – presumably among us today - who backed down after considering the consequences. If that is the case then wouldn’t the potential for a life sentence have the same effect?

Connecticut’s death penalty is a political masterpiece. It’s is all things to all politicians. The only constituents left with nothing to show for are the survivors of crime victims who never see justice. This year the legislature took a first step toward ending the charade.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - The Tom Dodd Factor.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:00:00 +0000

I write this column reluctantly. More than once, I have seen the personal and family toll taken by political scandal. When I worked as a journalist full time, I used to recoil when colleagues went after politicians without mercy, hiding behind the phrase; “They knew what they were getting into when they decided to step into the public life.”

I didn’t think that was the case then and I am sure of it now. No one understands the extent of the pain that can be inflicted when the news media decides a public figure needs to be brought down unless they have been through it. It can be debilitating and long lasting.

Understanding that, I’m the last person who wants to bring up a discussion of former Connecticut U.S. Senator Thomas Dodd when speaking about the current political plight of his son. But as Chris Dodd begins a campaign for re-election to the Senate in 2010 his father is becoming an issue.

Like most people in public life, Tom Dodd’s record is mixed. He is known best for two things. After World War Two he was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and in 1967, he became the first U.S. Senator to be censured by his colleagues. Understandably, the Dodd family has done its best to highlight the good and forget the bad. The hard work of repairing the elder Dodd’s image may be one of the casualties of Chris Dodd’s current campaign.

The Senator Dodd of today has just endured the worst year of his political life. He has been scrutinized as never before. His financial dealings, his judgment, even his wife’s business connections have been called into question. And for many long time political observers, the comparisons to the end of his father’s career and ultimately his life, seems all too similar to ignore.

The issue was brought into focus best by a June article in Newsweek titled, “Like Father, Like Son.” It was a very sympathetic look at Tom Dodd’s case. On June 23, 1967, by a vote of 92 to 5, the Senate ruled Dodd’s behavior was “contrary to accepted morals…and tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.” In contrast, the Newsweek article summed it up this way: “The facts were never fully proved and remain murky – the elder Dodd apparently used fundraising dinners as a kind of home piggybank.”

Chris Dodd is quoted in the article as saying his father was “screwed” and more than 40 years later there are many who agree with him. Somehow, the ethical expectations of the day had changed and no remembered to tell Tom.

Other recent news accounts have made reference to the problems of the father and the son, but the Newsweek report takes it a step further. It makes the ethics link and it makes clear that Chris Dodd believes his father got a raw deal allowing his opponents to re-litigate the case in the court of public opinion.

From time to time over the years, Dodd’s political opponents have tried to raise the memory of his father as an issue against him. It has never worked. This time may be different. At the very least, Dodd’s challengers can put him on the defensive by forcing him to debate his father’s case in public. A losing issue for Dodd. At worst, the material makes for a potentially devastating political ad campaign for a challenger with nothing to lose. The effect of it all will run counter to all the work the Dodd family has done to rehabilitate Tom Dodd’s image.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Task Force: Budget.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:00:00 +0000

One thing is certain about the state budget crisis of 2009 – it will extend into 2010.

Hard to believe, but true. Usually incumbents do anything they can to avoid making tough decisions in an election year, but because the decisions necessary to balance the budget in 2009 are so difficult, many of them will rollover into next year like late term papers at the end of the semester.

Ironically, part of the problem stems from a decision in 2008, by leaders of both parties, to forgo making budget adjustments, even though they saw the signs of a growing fiscal crisis. Delay only made things worse.

The failure to use this budget crisis as an opportunity to make fundamental change means lawmakers and the governor are resorting to quick fixes to keep things on track. To fill the massive budget hole, both sides are using one time revenue sources like the Rainy Day Fund, federal stimulus money and swiping cash from special funds set up to pay for existing programs. Anything to avoid spending cuts that lead to sacrifice or tax increases.

The problem with this one shot approach is that it ends up creating a bigger structural gap in the overall budget. It’s the government equivalent of relying on an annual performance bonus to maintain a lifestyle your base salary doesn’t support.

That’s what’s happening now. Eager to make the problem go away – if only for a while – Connecticut’s leaders are creating a politician’s worst nightmare ahead of a statewide election year. Think how bad 1991 would have been, if lawmakers were campaigning for re-election at the same time they were imposing a state income tax.

Governor Jodi Rell may see it all coming. Even as she stood by her no tax increase until I see big spending cuts strategy, she told Republicans at this year’s Prescott Bush dinner that she didn’t expect to maintain her high approval ratings too much longer. She was there for the income tax debate and watched Governor Lowell Weicker’s approval ratings plunge to near freezing in mid-summer.

Still, the continuing crisis provides an opportunity to make positive change. It’s almost certain that at some point in the coming weeks there will be a call for a bi-partisan commission to consider government restructuring. The forming of a task force is usually a reliable way to avoid making a hard decision, but it can also be used to instill courage in legislators looking for a reason to make a hard choice.

The most important thing to do when forming a task force is to understand the outcome you are looking for. It’s one thing for a governor to propose merging all the state’s economic development functions – as Governor Rell did this year – but it’s another if a respected task force recommends the merger and how to do it.

Democrats have been fighting for years to make Connecticut’s tax structure more progressive. They’ve never shown, with reliable evidence provided by a non-partisan source, why Connecticut’s current system isn’t progressive enough.

Even in tough times there is always the opportunity to make progress somewhere. Since 2006, there is a growing consensus in state government and in the business community that the state needs to invest heavily in transportation. A goal of any restructuring should be an effort to direct resources away from inefficient programs and toward the agreed upon goal of transportation improvement.

Just three examples of issues where there is wide agreement, but where no one is pointing the way. The creation of a commission is usually met with skepticism, but in this environment it could lead to change.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Interview - Carter Kneeland.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Ethics continues to dominate the Connecticut legislature as one of the major issues of the last ten years. The current cases of Senators Tom Gaffey and Joe Crisco are representative of the dilemmas presented by campaign finance laws and the relationships that inevitably complicate everyday politics.

Recognizing a growing need to help private sector clients navigate the ever changing ethics environment, Carter Kneeland, a veteran of the state Capitol and the field of government relations, has formed a new consulting firm focused on ethics.

Ethical Influence, is billed as "government relations beyond lobbying." She is offering a range of services from consulting to training and code compliance. In this interview, I asked Carter about her new firm and the state of the ethics debate in Connecticut.

DP: How did you come to the conclusion that there’s a market for the services you are offering?

Kneeland: The Connecticut General Assembly has been enacting, and subsequently tweaking, the state’s ethics laws for decades. From the nation’s capitol to Connecticut’s municipalities, ethics issues and compliance are now standard front page news.

While working for over 15 years for the Hartford lobbying firm of Robinson & Cole, I provided ethics reporting and consulting services to clients and saw the need for a specialized practice that focused on state and municipal contractors and lobbyists. The Office of State Ethics is constantly issuing advisory opinions, staff opinions and auditing the regulated community, all of which makes compliance a tricky and fluid matter. It helps to have someone dedicated to watching the regulations, who has an open relationship with the agency staff and who has years of experience navigating the financial reporting requirements.

DP: Do you consider your services to be lobbying with a special eye on ethics, or something to be added on top of traditional lobbying? Or something else?

Kneeland: In the wake of campaign finance reform and ethics reform, the traditional model of “pay to play” has been marginalized. Lobbyists continue to have a crucial role at the capitol but the services my company provides are outside that realm – government relations beyond lobbying. We don’t lobby, but we often work with our clients’ lobbyists to enhance their message and get it out to their target audience. Ethics compliance, if done well, will keep clients out of the limelight in a good way…and our public relations and grassroots efforts will highlight the message they want to send.

DP: What’s your opinion on the debate over whether the Legislature should have its own ethics committee(s)?

Kneeland: It is evident from the recent legislative session that the General Assembly does not have the collective will to police itself. It’s failure to pass an independent ethics panel bill this year, especially in the wake of several campaign finance violations, is evidence that politics will always be the 600 pound gorilla in the room. The state’s independent watch dog agencies, the Office of State Ethics and the State Elections Enforcement Commission, must fill that role. They have their own political battles, not the least of which is their reliance on state funding and the budgetary process which this year has put particular strains on their ability to function at full capacity.

DP: Do you see any evidence that the relatively new citizens’ ethics commission is going too far in an attempt to be “tough, but fair?”

Kneeland: Tough but fair is a good model, so long as the playing field is level. To this point it has been my experience that the office has been focused on the lobbying community. It is only recently that they have begun to take a closer look at the public official side of the regulated community. By auditing the statements of financial interest of public officials, the OSE is starting to take a look at the compliance of that sector. Enforcement of these reporting requirements should be met with the same vigilance they have shown lobbyists.

DP: Ethics has been a huge issue in Connecticut for the past several years. Even so, the Legislature usually gets bored after it thinks the issue has been addressed. Do you see the pendulum swinging the other way at all?

Kneeland: I think the ethics issue will be with us for some time. It was the first act of the current President. Our Governor talks about it in every State of the State address. Campaign finance violations trouble our legislature as it copes with reform. In Connecticut, the ethics battle has moved to the municipalities, where scandals and criminal investigations are bringing the issue to the forefront. Each town in Connecticut must decide how to handle these issues, unless the state resolves to enact a model code. As companies struggle to survive the current economic environment, fight for stimulus funds and cope with compliance regulations, it is clear that we will all be talking about ethics for a long time to come.

Carter’s blog: Ethical Influence Blog