GOVERNOR’S OFFICE
June 8, 2009
BILL NOTIFICATION
RELEASE No. 21
For Immediate Release
Governor M. Jodi Rell vetoed the following bill of the 2009 Regular Session on the date indicated after the title of the bill:
P.A. 09-87
s.S.B. 922 AN ACT CONCERNING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES FOR THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT OF HARTFORD COUNTY
This Act passed and shall take effect as follows: Section 1 shall take effect October 1, 2009 and Section 2 shall take effect July 1, 2010. The Governor vetoed the bill on June 8, 2009.
Governor M. Jodi Rell signed the following legislation of the 2009 Session on the date indicated after the title of the bill:
P.A. 09-109
s.S.B. 451 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A SILVER ALERT SYSTEM
This Act passed as amended by House Amendment Schedule A
and shall take effect July 1, 2009. The Governor signed this bill
on June 5, 2009.
P.A. 09-110
S.B. 842 AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDENT LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM RESERVE FUND
This Act passed and shall take effect upon passage, which is the
day the Governor signed the bill. The Governor signed this bill
on June 5, 2009.
Distributed by:
Office of the Legal Counsel
As of this date, the Governor has signed one hundred sixteen (116) and vetoed three (3) bills of the 2009 Legislative Session.
The Governor's veto message is attached:
June 8, 2009
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 922, An Act Concerning Affirmative Action and Contracting Procedures for the Metropolitan District of Hartford County. By declaring the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) a state agency for certain purposes, this bill conflicts with other state laws, sets a burdensome precedent and places an unfunded mandate on the State.
The Metropolitan District Commission is a non-profit municipal corporation that provides potable water and sewerage services on a regional basis. It is not a state agency, department, board or commission. However this bill declares the MDC a state agency for purposes of affirmative action plans and discrimination complaints. While well intentioned in its goal of achieving greater diversity and oversight of alleged discrimination and contracting at the MDC, this statutory change is not the appropriate means to achieve such ends.
If the legislature were allowed to declare any entity that it saw fit a “state agency” for certain purposes, who knows where such declarations would end. This precedent, carried to its natural consequence, would permit the legislature to declare any non-profit, municipality or corporation a “state agency” when it simply disapproved of, disagreed with, or disliked the direction of the entity and wished to exercise greater control over its operations.
Furthermore, this legislation places an unfunded mandate on the State. Pursuant to Section 46a-68 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) is required to investigate certain discrimination complaints involving state agencies, departments, boards and commissions. DAS believes that this new change will result in the need for one additional person to handle the increase in complaints expected from MDC. It also requires the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to review MDC’s affirmative action plan and provide training and technical assistance in plan development and implementation. Moreover, the bill requires that the Contracting Standards Board develop regulations particularly tailored to MDC’s purposes, taking into consideration circumstances and factors that are unique to the organization. Countless hours will be spent on promulgating such regulations, for a purpose which is truly not under the state’s purview. MDC itself has expressed concerns that the legislation would result in duplication, shifting of costs to the State and possible disruption of its current efforts and actions.
If the legislature wishes more to be done at MDC, it should enact legislation setting forth specific goals and mandates particular to MDC, rather than declaring it a state agency. Also, to comport with constitutional principles, such mandates should be related to legitimate state interests and applied consistently for all similarly situated entities.
For these aforementioned reasons and pursuant to Section 15 of Article Fourth 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 922 without my signature.
Very truly yours,
M. Jodi Rell
Governor
