Senate Approves Taking Governor’s Appointment Power, Declines Ethics Rule
by Christine Stuart | May 29, 2009 7:48 AM
Posted to State Capitol
The state Senate approved a bill Friday morning 21-12, which would require a US Senate vacancy to be filled by a special election, instead of gubernatorial appointment.
Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, said the bill returns the power to elect a US Senator to the people of Connecticut. Since the 1940s the power to appoint a US Senator has resided with the governor, but recent scandals like the one in Illinois over Barack Obama’s vacant senate seat has given the concept of holding a special election more momentum than in previous years. The bill now heads to the House for a approval.
Also Republicans tried to change the rules of the Senate to create a bipartisan committee of ethics to allow for senators to be disciplined by their peers.
The Republican move comes on the heels of two recent election complaints against two Democratic senators who were noticeably absent during the debate and vote Friday morning.
Sen. Thomas Gaffey, D-Meriden, who was fined $6,000 in March for double-billing the state and his own political action committee for expenses related to his attendance at legislative conferences, and Sen. Joseph Crisco, D-Woodbridge, who was fined $4,000 this week for violating state election laws related to his re-election campaign, were both absent.
Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Southport, predicted that the resolution to change the rules would be defeated, but tried to remind his Democratic colleagues that once upon a time, the concept was something they supported.
Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said it opens the doors to frivolous complaints against any of the 36 senators. He said it means even if someone believed a rumor was true they couldn’t be held responsible for making a false statement against a senator. McKinney said he met with Williams earlier in the day Thursday and would have agreed to limit who was able to file complaints to the 36 senators in the circle.
The idea of a bipartisan committee on Senate ethics first came up at the end of 2007 when former Sen. Louis DeLuca admitted to asking a man with mafia-ties to beat up his granddaughter’s husband because he thought she was being abused. A six-member panel, three Senators from each party, was appointed to determine whether to recommend a censure, reprimand, or expulsion. DeLuca ended up resigning before the committee made its final recommendation.
Support for changing the Senate’s rules to create a permit bipartisan committee on ethics seems to have faded since.
The bill failed mostly along party lines by a vote of 13-20, with only one Democrat, Sen. Ed Meyer, D-Guilford, voting for it.
Comments (16)
Posted by: ctkeith | May 29, 2009 8:44 AM
Christine,
How in the world can tranferring the power to decide whom represents our state in the US Senate from one person to all of us be portrayed as a "Power Grab" as it is in your headline?
Posted by: Connecticut Bob | May 29, 2009 9:59 AM
Yeah, I have to agree that "power grab" is a misnomer for a bill that actually RETURNS the power to whom it should belong - the voters.
Posted by: Sean | May 29, 2009 10:02 AM
Exactly, Christine! How in the world can a rule to permit the people of this state to elect their own senators be construed as a "power grab"? I know that Republican leader John McKinney used that phrase during the debate, but do you have to parrot that silly construction? Wouldn't it have been a "power grab" if Jodi Rell had been permitted to appoint a Republican to replace Joe Lieberman had he been appointed to a cabinet post under Bush, or been elected McCain's vice president? Isn't that more accurately called a power grab?
You also mention two Democrats who were absent from the debate who were recently fined. But you make no mention of John Rowland and DeLuca and Joe Lieberman who was recently fined $50,000 for election violations, all Republicans (yes, including Lieberman). Why in the world did you insinuate that the Democrats are avoiding this committee because of their own corruption? And why didn't you point out that McKinney's bill would have permitted every tom, dick and harry off the street to file complaints against senators, which could result in continuous investigations of every person in the senate? It was a horribly unworkable system and was rightly rejected by Democrats. I just don't understand why you can't be more accurate in your reporting.
Posted by: christine | May 29, 2009 11:04 AM
Sean,
I appreciate your comments and didn't have time more time to devote to the story this morning because I was needed at my other job---the one that pays me. I have since updated the story including a backgrounder on DeLuca.
Christine
Posted by: JohninGreenwich | May 29, 2009 11:17 AM
According to Merriam-Webster, grab means:
transitive verb
1: to take or seize by or as if by a sudden motion or grasp
2: to obtain unscrupulously
3: to take hastily
4 a: to seize the attention of b: to impress favorably and deeply
It seems to me that any time power is taken from on person or group by another group that the term "grab" is appropriate. It doesn't mean that the result is good or bad, or even that the grabbing was unscrupulous (though it could mean that), just that the power was taken suddenly.
I think the usage was apprpriate given that this bill was introduced during the last few days of the session, thus suddenly or hastily.
Posted by: Connecticut Bob | May 29, 2009 11:32 AM
John, in the real world most people don't have a Merriam-Webster dictionary at the ready to examine the literal meaning of a phrase. In the real world, the term "power grab" typically portrays an image of someone taking power for themselves. Grabbing something indicates possession of that thing.
In this case, the power would be delivered to the voters, one of whom I assume is you. Do you feel that being able to choose a senator is wrong?
Christine, we don't mean to gang up or anything. It's just the Courant used the same phrase and it rankled a bit. You're doing a terrific job and we truly value everything you do here.
But this IS the internet, the last refuge of the terminally nit-picky!
Posted by: Luther Weeks | May 29, 2009 12:46 PM
John,
I think you misunderstand the process when you say: "I think the usage was apprpriate given that this bill was introduced during the last few days of the session, thus suddenly or hastily."
This bill was created on February 11, 2009 and went through the regular committee process. After that bills are "Introduced" in the Senate or House. Like it or not almost all bills that are "Introduced" to the full Senate or House are "Introduced" in the last couple weeks of the session.
Posted by: Strunk and White | May 29, 2009 1:30 PM
I'm still not thrilled with the title, "Senate Approves Taking Governor's Appointment Power."
Doesn't that imply that the Senate (or the legislature in general) now holds the power to appoint a replacement Senator?
It should read something like (but more graceful), "Senate Approves Giving Governor's Appointment Power to Electorate," no?
Posted by: patriotrider | May 29, 2009 1:42 PM
Christine's first headline was correct. It is a powergrab. Do you think if the Governor was a Democrat, the majority party would pass legislation like that? Doubtful.
Posted by: christine | May 29, 2009 1:43 PM
Everyone is a critic today.
No seriously, I appreciate everyone's input. I don't want to use the headline to write the entire story so I'm leaving it as it is at the moment. All the other suggestions would be perfectly fine and I may use them in the future, but need to move on and cover the news of the day.
Posted by: Patriotrider | May 29, 2009 1:46 PM
And btw, does anyone else find it humorous that ethically-challenged and recently fined Senators Gaffey and Crisco conveniently were absent for the vote on the bipartisan ethics panel? Which of course failed in the Senate. Shocka.
Am curious to see how Jim O'Rourke is going to vote when this comes up in the House.
Posted by: Strunk and White | May 29, 2009 2:02 PM
I'm a critic everyday, I'm Strunk and White, damnit!
If you want to leave the headline so that it plays in to the Republican talking points, that's your business.
Mine is criticism.
And Patriot Rider, if that is your real name, I have no way of knowing what the legislature would do if the Governor was a Democrat, but I sincerely hope they would take away the power to appoint a Senator for two years without an election!
Posted by: christine | May 29, 2009 2:30 PM
How about "US Senate Vacancy Bill Advances" would that make everyone happy? I don't think it can be more neutral than that.
Posted by: Paul | May 29, 2009 2:37 PM
Maybe you should eliminate words entirely and just use "?? ?????? ??????? ???? ????????". Not only does that resolve the complaints, but the title becomes a puzzle too. Two ????? with one stone. ????!
Posted by: Strunk and White | May 29, 2009 4:21 PM
Who could argue with "US Senate Vacancy Bill Advances"?
Posted by: mattw | June 3, 2009 9:50 PM
Who needs neutral?
You're using editorial judgement in what stories you pursue, what sources you contact, and what quotes get included. Some people will like that judgement, others won't (and those others will complain about it).
If you think the bill is offensive, why worry about papering over that fact? Objectivity is so elusive, and even if you managed to achieve it hardly anyone would appreciate that you did.