Lawmakers on the Government Administration and Elections Committee are considering a bill that would re-establish the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (PRI), a bipartisan committee that conducted deep-dive investigations into the effectiveness of public policy and programs, after the 44-year-old committee was eliminated as part of the 2016 budget crunch.
The committee bill is co-sponsored by House Republicans and supported by the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) and the Northeastern Council of Governments (NECCOG).
A similar bipartisan effort in 2022 was passed out of committee but never taken up for a vote. At the time the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) estimated re-establishing the committee would cost a little over $1 million in staffing costs. However, the bill also included regulatory changes for the University of Connecticut and for state contractor pre-qualification, which were opposed by both UConn and Connecticut’s construction unions.
This year, the move to revive the PRI Committee is a stand-alone bill.
In written testimony, House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, said Republicans unanimously opposed elimination of the Program Review and Investigations Committee during the 2016 budget battle, and that it’s time to reinstitute the watchdog committee.
“The PR&I Committee is much better equipped to handle wide-ranging investigation and analysis of government programs than any of the working groups and studies we create each year – some of which go unfilled or don’t complete their work,” Candelora said in written testimony. “Furthermore, an independent review of programs allows legislators to receive an unbiased assessment without having to rely on self-serving agency information.”
“Connecticut lacks, compared to other states, the research capacity to thoughtfully examine key policy issues – devoid of party – to provide the necessary information concerning policy issues deliberations of the General Assembly – which PRI had the capacity to deliver,” wrote John Filchak, executive director for NECCOG.
When it was operating, the PRI Committee was comprised of both Democrats and Republicans and had its own full-time staff of 12 to help research issues. During the 2017 cuts, legislators decided to eliminate and reassign the staff, part of a reported $750,000 in savings. During their time in operation, the PRI Committee authored 325 reports, some of which resulted in savings of hundreds of millions.
Although there was no in-person testimony regarding the PRI Committee, the Judicial Branch of Connecticut did raise one concern, according to written testimony from Deputy Director Ross Lee, who pushed back against the PRI Committee being able to review complaints and the disposition of complaints by the Judicial Review Council and requested the language be “limited to informational and data collection purposes only.”
Pursuant to Article 5, Section 7 of the Connecticut Constitution, judges may be removed by impeachment, and removed by the Governor on the address of two-thirds of each house of the General Assembly. Additionally, the Constitution permits the General Assembly to establish a judicial review council, which may censure or suspend any judge for a period not longer than one year. Finally, the Supreme Court may remove or suspend a judge,” Lee wrote. “As such, the Program Review and Investigations Committee should have no role in investigating or disciplining judges.”
In its final year of operation, the PRI Committee authored reports concerning how the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities processes complaints; long-term care services; substance use services at the Department of Children and Families; and the continued use of Brainard Airport in Hartford, which is now the subject of a lawsuit as airport industries and supporters push back against efforts by city officials to close and repurpose the airport.
“For more than 40 years, the OPRI was an incredibly useful office, with a plethora of full-time professional staff that recommended changes to improve state agency programs, including elimination,” Wyatt Bosworth, associate counsel for CBIA wrote in testimony. “With Connecticut finally in a stable fiscal condition, it is time to bring back this important legislative tool to ensure that our state government is running as effectively, and as efficiently, as possible.”
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I hope this Committee investigates the waste by the Office of Statewide Bar Counsel and Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, which target powerless lawyers with conjured-up disciplinary charges in order to keep busy and make numbers to support their inflated budgets, while at the same time covering up for other lawyers depending on their power and connections.
The two offices have spent the last year and half advancing a disciplinary matter against me for supposedly not informing a client in a fee agreement that there are no litigation expenses in the CHRO. Probably $100,000 in time based on the salaries of those who’ve spent time on my matter. All because they refuse to simply drop a baseless case, because they must “save face.” And if they are this determined, it suggests they know the outcome.
We shall see.
I agree with Attorney Bruce Matzkin as the Office of Statewide Bar Counsel and Office of Chief Disciplanary Counsel and he is being targeted for standing up against a corrupt Judicial System.