Current budget projections by the General Assembly’s Office of Fiscal Analysis, show a budget deficit of $72.2 million for current FY 2016 and estimated deficit of $507million in FY 2017.  With that backdrop, Governor Malloy presented his FY 2016-2017 budget adjustments proposal during his state of the state address to the General Assembly at noon today.

In a major departure, Malloy’s budget proposal would establish a new method of allocating funds to agencies.  Instead of budgeting individual line items, the Governor has proposed that agencies receive aggregate sums from which they will budget for individual programs.   It provides state agencies greater discretion over the money it allocates, but it also requires them to post detailed information online explaining how they are spending the money.  Many legislators have expressed concern that this proposal will dilute the General Assembly’s authority, but it is not yet clear if they will oppose adoption of this style of budgeting.

The Appropriations Committee will hold a series of budget hearings over the next couple of weeks and then work in subcommittees to develop their alternative budget proposal.  They must vote a proposal out of committee by March 31.  Then, House and Senate leadership will begin negotiations with the administration.  A final compromise budget package is expected to be passed before the legislative session adjourns at midnight on May 4.

Below are the key highlights of the Governor’s budget proposal that impact AFT Connecticut members.  As more details become available, we will share them with you.  You can read the entire budget, summary documents, a PowerPoint presentation and the text of the Governor’s speech on Governor Malloy’s website:

http://portal.ct.gov/Departments_and_Agencies/Office_of_the_Governor/Gov__Malloy_s_FY_2017_Midterm_Budget_Adjustments/

OPM Secretary Barnes also suggested that if revenue projections do not improve, the FY 2018-FY 2019 biennial budget will require an additional 9% in cuts to discretionary spending.

The Governor’s budget plan includes:

• No tax increases
• $569.5 million in overall cuts:
  • $90.5 in ongoing savings from cuts made in December 2015 special session
  • $118.2 million in new spending cuts
  • 75% ($360M) cut in overall across the board spending reductions
• $10.6 million built-in surplus
• Personal property tax exemption for businesses with property under $10,000 (cost $6M)
• $31M in cuts to various PILOT grants

PreK-12/PSRP

• Flat funds ECS at FY 2016 levels, which is essentially a $11.5M cut
• Consolidates most programs SDE into Agency Operations and cuts that line item by $53M. Among the cuts are:
  • $1.3M from school transportation
  • $1.5M for adult education
  • $2.5M from priority school districts
  • $8M from excess cost grants
  • $3M from Open Choice
  • $18.6M from magnet schools
• Reduces staff in SDE Central Office and CTHSS $841K
• Eliminates general grant funding for RESCs $750K, but maintains $350K for minority teacher recruitment efforts
• Eliminates Adult Ed pilot programs in Manchester, Meriden, New Haven $400K
• Eliminates CommPACT Schools funding $350K
• Eliminates funding for Adult Alternative HS and Adult Reading Incentive Programs $200K
• Eliminates grant funding for after school programs $172K
• Eliminates line item for CTHSS and merges its funding with SDE as a whole, even though they have their own Board of Education
• Eliminates funding for Even Start $452K
• Eliminates funding for Early Literacy Program $142K
• Cuts support for School Based Health Centers $477K
• Teachers’ Retirement Board
  • Cuts Retiree Health Service Cost $147K
  • Cuts Municipal Retiree Health Insurance Cost $54K
  • Assumes restructuring of TRB unfunded liabilities

Higher Ed

• Block grants include fringe benefits for General Fund supported employees and create a separate grant to cover pension liabilities for tuition funded employees.
• University of Connecticut
  • UConn Storrs block grant cut $19M
  • Adds $5.4M for Next Generation Connecticut
• University of Connecticut Health Center
  • UConn Health Center block grant cut $12M
  • Allocates $90K to Hospital Roundtable for implementation of Public Act 15-146
  • Preserves UConn Health Center fringe benefit differential for Dempsey employees
  • Added $3.2M for BioSicence
• Board of Regents*
  • Adds $14.6M for Community Tech Colleges
  • Adds $40.6M for CSUs
  • Adds $2.3 M for a new incentive fund for outcomes based financing to promote student success for low income students

*We have been notified that there are errors in the Board of Regents block grants and the published budget book includes incorrect numbers.  We will forward corrected information when it becomes available.

From the Hartford Courant

HARTFORD — There was a rare debate in a veto session Monday, but as expected, the House of Representatives did not override Gov. Dannel Malloy’s veto of a bill that would have stipulated qualifications for candidates for state education commissioner.

The debate was unusual because the Democratic majority normally has enough votes to block any attempt to override vetoes by the Democratic governor. But some Democrats wanted to debate the issue, and 17 House Democrats voted to override the veto.

The bill called for setting qualifications for the education commissioner, an effort rooted in controversy around Malloy’s first pick for the job, Stefan Pryor. Pryor had a law degree from Yale University and a background in economic development, as well as experience as a deputy mayor in Newark, N.J. But he didn’t have a background in classroom teaching, which some educators said should be required for the state’s top education post. Pryor announced late last year that he was stepping down.

The legislature had passed a bill that called for the education commissioner to have five years of experience in the classroom, three years as an administrator and a master’s degree in an education-related field.

State Rep. David Alexander, an Enfield Democrat who voted to override the veto, said the proposed requirements were a common-sense measure that had overwhelming support in both the House and Senate.

“This seems like a logical prerequisite that got vetoed, which is wrong,” Alexander said. “I worked in the classroom as a substitute teacher when I was in law school, and I learned valuable insights about how students learn and how other teachers teach. … If it was a good idea, then let’s override the veto.”

The veto session Monday was required by the state constitution. To override a veto, there must be 101 votes in the House and 24 in the Senate. Monday’s vote on the education commissioner qualifications fell short, with 62 votes in favor and 21 against. Sixty-eight members were absent.

The 17 Democrats who voted to override Malloy’s education commissioner bill veto included Deputy Speaker Linda Orange of Colchester, Deputy Majority Leader Michelle Cook of Torrington, and Roberta Willis of Salisbury, co-chairwoman of the higher education committee.

The House adjourned soon after the education vote, and the members did not discuss any of Malloy’s eight other vetoes. As such, all nine of his vetoes were upheld. Later Monday, the Senate took no action on the vetoes.

Veto overrides are rare because they require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the legislature. Since Malloy took office in 2011, none of his vetoes has been overturned.

The situation was different in the Senate Monday, where Democrats succeeded in avoiding a debate. Majority Leader Bob Duff said “there is no point” to debate because the House had already adjourned.

After several minutes of procedural confusion, the Senate cast a party line vote of 18-12 to adjourn their session without a debate, infuriating minority Republicans.

“I’m very disappointed the way this came out, and I’ll leave it at that,” Senate Republican leader Len Fasano of North Haven said on the Senate floor.

Courant staff writer Andrew M. Duehren contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2015, Hartford Courant

• be subject to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act;
• conduct background checks;
• adopt anti-nepotism and conflict of interest policies;
• share best practices with local districts; &
• submit to random audits.