A Full Agenda For The Judiciary Committee
Members will seek ‘efficiencies’ during time of scarce resources
By JOHN A. KISSEL
As the recession continues to squeeze our precious tax dollars, I am honored to enter my 18th year as a state senator and 10th as the ranking senator on the legislature’s Judiciary Committee. I believe our committee is one of the most bipartisan in the legislature, and while our struggling economy will give us plenty of new challenges, we will all work together to fashion the best solutions possible.
As we consider new proposals and revisit past legislation, experts in their given fields, administrators and attorneys, will come before us to testify. While the insight they bring is invaluable, it really is the public’s opinion, the “campfires of gentle people” as Garrison Keillor once put it, which will guide our way as we consider important legislative initiatives.
Some of the areas which I believe will keep us quite busy on the Judiciary Committee in 2010, especially during the “short session” which goes from February to May, are outlined below.
Judges
An amazing amount of sitting judges, 49 at last count (along with two Workers’ Compensation Commissioners) will come before us this year for their reconfirmation hearings. If we spend just 10 minutes as a committee speaking with each judge that still adds up to nearly nine hours of hearings.
While some judges will not even take 10 minutes to reconfirm, there are always surprises along the way, especially with this many jurists before us. Also, I am happy to note that some groups within the state have taken a keener interest in this process, most notably the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Last year the CCDLA, under the leadership of their president, Conrad O. Seifert, and president-elect, Jennifer L. Zito, presented committee leadership with a huge tome of their members’ opinions on many judicial candidates.
This was unprecedented, and while I didn’t necessarily agree with all their conclusions or the apparent anonymous e-mail driven process, I view this as an exciting first step in what has the potential to be a very healthy addition to our review process.
Diminished Revenue
Another topic that will surely keep us busy will be the recession with its concomitant diminished tax revenues and impact on judicial resources. Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, working with Chief Court Administrator Barbara M. Quinn and her staff, will keep us informed as to what difficult choices are being contemplated.
Already in December we were informed that the law libraries in some courts would be closed to the general public and practicing attorneys alike. Further cuts are inevitable and the wholesale closing of some courthouses is not beyond imagination.
Also, court support services, parole and probation services, public defender services and the efforts of the 500 prosecutors, inspectors and support staff within the Division of Criminal Justice, led by Chief State’s Attorney Kevin T. Kane, will all be carefully reviewed to see if any policy changes can help bring about efficiencies while still maintaining our unswerving commitment to justice.
Prisons
The Judiciary Committee has cognizance over Connecticut’s Department of Corrections, a behemoth with 18 total correctional facilities, 6,570 total employees, approximately 18,300 inmates, and a total annual budget of nearly $680 million.
Connecticut has taken a national lead in trying to break the cycle of recidivism and reintegrate non-violent offenders back into society. As we continue along this path, efforts are being made to close at least one correctional facility, Webster C.I. in Cheshire, and there are beliefs that more closures may be on the way.
While we are at 18,300 inmates now, many believe the facilities’ design capacity is really 17,000, or even 15,000. Inmate numbers only tell half the story; the ratio of inmates to correctional officers is also critical, especially in light of the results of the state’s Retirement Incentive Program. As we embark on a path to close prisons, the Judiciary Committee will scrutinize these efforts to make sure that we do not jeopardize the health and safety of correctional officers, inmates, or anyone else within the communities where these facilities are located.
Inmates And Information
While reintegration is the goal, not all inmates are ready or willing to be reintegrated back into society. Some inmates, with nothing but time on their hands, seek ways to “game” the system at every turn. And many of them have stumbled upon our Freedom of Information laws.
A bill that failed to pass last year aimed to remedy the problem of inmates gaining access to correctional officers’ personnel records by restricting access to FOI-able documents. It is sure to engender healthy debate again this year, and hopefully win passage.
Sentencing Commission
Another bill that failed to make it through the legislature last year, but we will likely see again, is former HB 6697, “An Act Establishing a Sentencing Commission.”
At the recommendation of the Connecticut Sentencing Task Force, headed up by Board of Pardons and Paroles Chairman Bob Farr, the permanent establishment of a Sentencing Commission was proposed. If enacted, the commission will study the current criminal sentencing structure in the state as well as any proposed sentencing policies and make recommendations to the governor, the General Assembly and appropriate criminal justice agencies.
Information System
The Criminal Justice Information System has been meeting on a regular basis. Last year, we hired Sean Thakkar as executive director. He has worked diligently to gather input from members of the criminal justice community as well as study national trends regarding criminal justice information sharing technology.
CJIS has been given the responsibility of enhancing communication in the criminal justice system as well as making important improvements to how different agencies manage data on crime and criminal offenders. Members of the Judiciary Committee have been very involved in the process and will continue to closely monitor the progress being made on this front.
Family Support Magistrates
Last session Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed HB 6700, “An Act Concerning the Appointment of Family Support Magistrates.” The proposal would have extended appointments from three years to four and required legislative approval of the governor’s nominees.
While the co-chairs of the Judiciary Committee supported this approval, I opposed the bill both in committee and on the floor in the Senate. Should it be brought out again in the coming session, it will likely run into the same problem crossing the governor’s desk as last year.
Marijuana Decriminalization
Some states facing budget problems similar to Connecticut’s have looked at creative, albeit controversial ways to subsidize the general fund as tax revenues continue to decline. California and Massachusetts both took measures last year to decriminalize marijuana and impose a fine rather than criminal penalty. A similar proposal was before the Judiciary Committee last session and we will likely see the issue come up again this coming year. While I am not in support of the proposal, if ever the time were ripe for such a reform to gain momentum, as we watch our revenue estimates continue to decline, this would be the year.
These are just a few of the many bills and areas of oversight that the Judiciary Committee will devote its attention to in 2010. If past is prologue, there will certainly be some issues or proposals that are not even on our radar that will catch fire and engender exciting public hearings and spirited debates. •
State Sen. John A. Kissel, of Enfield, is the ranking Republican senator on the legislature’s Judiciary Committee and also serves as an attorney in the legal department of Northeast Utilities.
HOME
