The Honorable Susan Bysiewicz

Secretary of the State

20 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Secretary Bysiewicz:

I am returning to you without my signature, Senate Bill 94, An Act Concerning Reform of the State Contracting Process.  The revisions to Senate Bill 94, contained in LCO #8368 of House Bill 7502, adopted by the General Assembly as part of its June, 2005 Special Session, create unacceptable and far-reaching consequences for state government and those state government seeks to serve.  Indeed, LCO #8368 amends Senate Bill 94 in such a way that it will jeopardize the continued provision of routine as well as critical services and programs. 

Particularly adversely affected could well be our most fragile citizens, such as those who live in group homes for the mentally retarded, those who are in need of mental health services, those in substance abuse counseling and treatment programs, those looking for supportive housing opportunities, those seeking foster care and adoptive support services, and those receiving vocational training for the disabled.

The amended Senate Bill 94 would prohibit the Department of Children and Families or other state social service agencies from providing new childcare and other services through private, non-profit social service providers.   Attempts by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to expand mental health programs and services to more clients could be severely curtailed by amended Senate Bill 94.  The state’s colleges and universities, such as the constituent units of the Connecticut State University system, would be seriously constrained in their ability to provide food services at dining and residence halls for students and faculty through private contracts. 

As one employee of a non-profit provider wrote to me regarding this legislation, “When has the state decided that turning its back on its most vulnerable citizens - children, the mentally retarded, physically and mentally disabled and the elderly is good business?” 

Frankly, it’s not good business, and the underlying bill, Senate Bill 94, results in restrictions on the operation of state government which are far too severe.

The amended Senate bill goes too far in prohibiting the renewal, modification, extension, or re-bidding of too many vital contracts which are necessary to serve the state’s citizens. In short, the effect of the amended bill is to impose draconian restraints on state government, harm those who are in need of state government services and programs and penalize our taxpayers who must bear the costs of state government.

Contracts for services are essential tools in the management of state government, allowing agencies to deliver services in the most innovative, cost-efficient and consumer-responsive manner.  When used properly, contracts with private providers support the mission of the state and its employees.  However, the broad prohibition against nearly all contracts with private providers prevents the state from making appropriate business decisions and will have severe financial impacts on the state’s budget. 

I find the need to veto Senate Bill 94 particularly disappointing because reform of the contracting process is an important part of my “Fairness over Favoritism” reform package.  The bipartisan task force that I established last year (State Contracting Reform Task Force) worked for many months to develop and shape the ideas that formed the basis for Senate Bill 94.  It was my hope that the Legislature would act to implement the Task Force’s recommendations, establish a State Contract Standards Board and ultimately put in place a toughest-in-the-nation procurement code.  Unfortunately, my reform efforts and the work of my Task Force have been vitiated by the amendment to Senate Bill 94. 

However, in an effort to preserve the basic reform measures of Senate Bill 94, I, concurrently with the delivery of this veto message, am issuing Executive Order No. 7 regarding Contracting and the Procurement of Goods and Services by State Agencies.   This Executive Order will continue the momentum for positive change in the state contracting process and establish a new, much needed procurement code. Although codifying in statute the reforms promoted by the Task Force would have been preferable, the necessary infrastructure may be established within executive branch agencies to further reform state contracting and procurement processes.  Initially, Executive Order No. 7 will be applicable only to state agencies within the executive branch and boards of higher education.  It is my fervent hope that through legislative action next session, the provisions of Executive Order No. 7 can be extended to include all of state government, including the legislature, judicial branch and elected statewide officers.  

For all of the reasons stated herein, I disapprove of Senate Bill 94, An Act Concerning Reform of the State Contracting Process.  Pursuant to Article Four, Section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and Article III of the Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning Senate Bill 94 without my signature.

Very truly yours,

M. Jodi Rell

Governor