Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

Turn to THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx to gain insight into what appears to be a standard of operation which our tax dollars have been supporting -� http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/report.aspx?aid=763

*****

ARTICLE IN TODAY'S JOURNAL INQUIRER OF MANCHESTER (not yet posted on the net) �� SEC COMPLAINT AGAINST DIBELLA TO MOVE FORWARD. A federal judge in New Haven has denied a bid by long time political power broker, William E. Dibella, to dismiss a fraud complaint lodged against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission two years ago. Article written by Don Michak, reporter for the Journal Inquirer of Manchester,� on January 7, 2005, page 19.

*****

From Mike Telesca, teleman2@aol.com, Waterbury,

JOIN A NATIONAL CONFERENCE CALL, Sunday, JANUARY, 15, 2006, 7:00 PM EST, "IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT MOVEMENT? YOU BET!", A NATIONAL CONFERENCE CALL FOR INDEPENDENTS WITH JACKIE SALIT, Start the New Year with Independents from around the country. Call in # - 605-990-0200; Access Code: 538765# , Please make a reservation to join the call. To reserve a spot please contact Nancy Ross at national@cuip.org or call 800-288-3201/212-609-2800.

******

Lawmakers considering tinkering with electric deregulation law By SUSAN HAIGH AP Political Writer January 2, 2006, 8:46 PM EST HARTFORD, Conn. -- Last week's news of double-digit electric rate increases in Connecticut is prompting some at the state Capitol to consider what, if anything, the legislature can do in the next session to soften the blow to rate-payers.� Connecticut Light & Power's 22.4 percent increase comes about seven years after the legislature passed a far-reaching law that deregulated the state's electric utility industry in hopes of lowering rates for residents and businesses, ending electric monopolies and bringing more power plants into the state.� Continued at the following website �.�� http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--electricrates0102jan02,0,79482.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

Now let�s take a walk down memory lane to DEREGULATION:

Feb 9, 1998 - Blumenthal Praises Electric Deregulation Bill and Urges Stronger Protections For Ratepayers http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=1773&Q=282750

1997 - How corporate lobbyists are shaping the fate of Connecticut's electric industry http://old.hartfordadvocate.com/articles/power.html

Connecticut Cool to Power Utility's Rate Hike Request 11/21; State Attorney General Wants Denial of Utility's Rate Increase Request 11/13; NRG, CL&P Settle Power Purchase Dispute 11/12; FERC Upholds CL&P, NRG Energy Inc. Power Contract 10/7; AARP Seeks to Join Case Against CL&P Rate Hike 9/16; Connecticut Regulators Ask FERC for Transmission Cost-Sharing 9/11

******

Jim Hoover, Vernon, jim.hoover@sbcglobal.net

January 3, Wall Street Journal Opinion Page

Teachers' Pets: The NEA gave $65 million in its members' dues to left-liberal groups last year.� If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.� Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.�� We already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom. Many of the organization's disbursements--$30,000 to the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, $122,000 to the Center for Teaching Quality--at least target groups that ostensibly have a direct educational mission. But many others are a stretch, to say the least. The NEA gave $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." The National Women's Law Center, whose Web site currently features a "pocket guide" to opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts.� The new disclosure rules mark the first revisions since 1959 and took effect this year. "What wasn't clear before is how much of a part the teachers unions play in the wider liberal movement and the Democratic Party," says Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a California-based watchdog group. "They're like some philanthropic organization that passes out grant money to interest groups."

There's been a lot in the news recently about published opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid. The partisans at People for the American Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens to be vehemently anti-voucher.

The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA's Washington state affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public schools.) And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on "the construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction," received a $249,000 donation from NEA headquarters.�� When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals. The good news is that for the first time members can find out how their union chieftains did their political thinking for them, by going to www.union-reports.dol.gov, where the Labor Department has posted the details.

Union officials claim that they favored such transparency all along, but the truth is they fought the new rules hard in both Congress and the courts. Originally, the AFL-CIO said detailed disclosures were too expensive, citing compliance costs in excess of $1 billion. The final bill turned out to be $54,000, or half of what the unions spent on litigation fighting the new requirements. When Secretary Chao refused to back down, the unions took her to court, and lost.� It's well understood that the NEA is an arm of the Democratic National Committee. (Or is it the other way around?) But we wonder if the union's rank-and-file stand in unity behind this laundry list of left-to-liberal recipients of money that comes out of their pockets.

******

Refer below for information on the lucrative

TAXPAYER-FINANCED MAILING PRIVILEGES OF STATE LEGISLATORS

******

Governor Rell: State Surplus Up $21 Million from Last Month: Dec 21, 2005 - Citing upticks in personal income and corporate tax revenue growth, Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced that the state Office of Policy and Management�s (OPM) projected General Fund surplus of approximately $327.8 million demonstrates that the state�s economy continues to rebound and grow. � Continued at the following website:� http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?Q=307958&A=1761

******

Abramoff Pleads Guilty to 3 Counts, Lobbyist to Testify About Lawmakers In Corruption Probe, By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post Staff Writers, January 4, 2006; Page A01: Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, pleaded guilty yesterday to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. Continued at this website:� http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300474.html�� and� http://search.msn.com/results.asp?search=MSNBC&q=abramoff+site%3Amsnbc.msn.com&submit=Search&id=3053419&FORM=AE ; http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0105-34.htm ; http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15883041&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6

Abramoff: The Connecticut Connection: ��Four from Connecticut Received Money Linked to Abramoff� http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15883367&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=569380&rfi=8

******

Eminent Domain Articles

1.� Constitutional changes eyed as new hurdles for eminent domain, PAUL DAVENPORT, The Associated Press,� Jan 3, 2006, PHOENIX - A legislative committee chairman on Tuesday proposed two amendments to the Arizona Constitution and offered other legislation to bolster private property owners' protections from forced purchase by governments.� Continued at the following website: �http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breakingnews/010306eminent_domain

2.� Governments Address Kelo Backlash, By: James Hoare, Published In: Environment News, January 1, 2006, Publisher: The Heartland Institute� Refer to the following website:� http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18253

3.� Property Rights Receive Pre-session Attention: By Jason Mercier, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Jan 6, 2006� � The 2006 legislative session gets underway on January 9, but there are already two bills pre-filed addressing property rights. One bill (HB 2427) is in response to last year's devastating eminent domain ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The other bill (HJR 4214) is a constitutional amendment capping the increase in a home's assessed value at one percent. Eminent Domain: The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the taking of private property by the government unless it is for a public use and the owner receives just compensation. Prior to last year, the term "public use" referred to projects such as public roads, schools, etc. The taking of private property by the government to then turn that property over to another private entity was not a widely acceptable practice. The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London changed that. The decision permits governments to seize private property for private development even when that property is not "put into use for the general public.� Continued at the following website:� http://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=1317&number=56 hanged

******

Ray Chicoine, RDChicoine@msn.com

Coventry, Jan 1, 2005

Two Subjects Re� Coventry: (1)� Nonresidents can vote on Budget Referendum; (2) Coventry Republicans took control of Town Council and Board of Ed

Hi Sue:�� In answer to the question regarding non resident property owners to vote in the budget referendum, In Coventry it is permitted as long as the property is assessed at $1,000 or more. This would allow those people who own raw land or those who own rental property residing out of town, the opportunity to vote on town budgets.��

On another issue, the Republican Party made a clean sweep in the Town of Coventry in the past November elections. We regained control of the town council (my wife Phyllis was also elected)� with a 5-2 majority and control of the board of Education with a 4-3 majority. �� Already we have stopped spending above what was approved in the previously approved budget in October and have taken steps to conserve energy in the schools and town offices. Several years ago the Democratic Town Council cut out middle school sports at the third budget rejection forcing the soccer moms to come out in force. They cut out some $8,000 for school sports even though the town had a $500,000 surplus. That year the budget passed with a 4% tax increase.� This year was no different. Initially they proposed a 12% tax increase on top of a town wide reevaluation in which some properties increased by over 50%. �� At the second budget rejection in June 2005, they cut school sports again. Children were parading outside the polling places in July pleading for the budget to be passed. There was a rally at the Meadowbrook shopping center in October using the children in which the budget was finally passed. The budget that was passed was the same one presented in September with out any changes with a 8.24% tax increase. � They did some fuzzy accounting in which they were able to inflate the previous 2003 grand list so the new 2004 grand didn't look so bad. In reality they proposed a 8.24 % tax increase but they were saying it was only a 4% tax increase. I made a presentation to the old council describing how the property reevaluation in the lake area got hit really hard. Town wide property went up by 33% but in the lake area the average was 39% with one association at 44% and another at 49% increase.�� At lot of people were angry with the old council; because of their arrogance. We used the tax issue against them and had a number of quotes the council made during the last two years. When the Democrat candidates went out door to door campaigning, they were bombarded by these quotes. You can't imagine how angry they were.�� The town council has seven members and has a limit of five from the majority party and a minimum of two from the minority party. The board of ed is similar but has four from the majority and three from the minority party�� So the lowest vote getter of the Republicans had more votes than the highest vote getter of the Democrats. �� One of the first things we did was to start to conserve energy. The heat was turned down and computers turned off at night and now we are looking at turning off unnecessary lights. These are starters. We have a business man on the finance committee and he is real sharp. �� With this 8% tax increase we hope to have a zero or close to zero tax increase next year. Past practice showed the town would accept a 4% increase but not 8.�� Should be a fun year�� Wish us luck.�� Happy New Year.�� Ray Chicoine

******

gcgreve@msn.com

Jan 2, 2005

Voting Qualifications

In response to your request for information about which Town's allow voting by "non- residents, (below) the statute immediately following this e-mail is the legal basis for this approach. I believe it applies to ALL CT municipalities----Charter and non-Charter communities alike.�� The technical distinction in the statutes is between "electors"- those registered to vote in all elections- and "property owners" who can vote on specific items only but CAN NOT vote as electors ( ie can not vote for First Selectman etc). Property owners can vote on tax issues AND ALL ITEMS THAT GO TO REFERENDUM.�� The only limit on a property voter is that no matter how many properties they own, they still only get one vote. That makes sense. As does the practice that an elector who is also a property voter only gets one vote...they can chose whether to vote as an elector or as a property voter ( in our town they are tracked separately).� gary greve....Save Westbrook

Sec. 7-6. Eligibility to vote. At any town meeting other than a regular or special town election or at any meeting of any fire, sewer or school district or any other municipal subdivision of any town incorporated by any special act, any person who is an elector of such town may vote and any citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years or more who, jointly or severally, is liable to the town, district or subdivision for taxes assessed against him on an assessment of not less than one thousand dollars on the last-completed grand list of such town, district or subdivision, or who would be so liable if not entitled to an exemption under subdivision (17), (19), (22), (23), (25) or (26) of section 12-81, may vote, unless restricted by the provisions of any special act relating to such town, district or subdivision

******

To all who forwarded to me the following press release.� Thank you.� Sue Kniep

Press release- For Immediate Release- December 28, 2005

Contact: Tim McKee, CT Green Party National Committee Person, (860) 643-2282 or cell (860) 324-1684�� Mike DeRosa, State Co-Chair (860)956-8170 or (860) 919-4042 (cell)

CT. GREENS VOTE TO SUE OVER

NEW CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LAWS

Portland, CT- At its state meeting, Tuesday, December 27, at the Portland Public Library, the state leaders of the Green Party of Connecticut voted last night to sue over the new Campaign Finance Reform law that sets huge signatures petition drives ONLY for third parties to qualify for state public financing, and met with Cliff Thornton about a possible run for Governor.�� Tim McKee, Green Party National Committee person said "We are now looking at suing over these unfair laws that punish Independents and the Green Party candidates with having to collect over 200,000 additional signatures or 20% of the state voting lists to qualify for public funding of campaigns for Governor. We voted to talk to lawyers and discuss our other options, and hope the General Assembly quickly changes this provision in this upcoming short G. A. session before we have to go to court." � Continued at the following website:� http://www.gp.org/press/states/ct_2005_12_28.shtml�

******

PLEASE SUPPORT

The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. (FCTO)

Your donation can be mailed to FCTO, Treasurer, Bernie Ro, 162 Putting Green Road, Trumbull, CT 06611

A Message from Susan Kniep, President of FCTO - We continue to ask for your support of The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.�� (FCTO).� Your contribution to the Federation is voluntary and dedicated exclusively to mailings, our website, and supplies.� We are a 501c4 organization and have no paid staff.��

This is unlike the recently passed Campaign Finance Laws which you are now forced to finance.�� These laws are flawed in that the public is not only paying to finance future campaigns beginning in 2008 but unreasonable restrictions are placed on third party candidates to access these funds.� Further, the campaign finance bill does not eliminate PACs, but instead allows the four legislative caucuses to retain three leadership PACs to which contractors and others can donate and from which money can be channeled to candidates.� Also, legislators can continue to maintain personal PACs.�

Yet, public financing of political campaigns for incumbents in the state legislature is nothing new.� It is guised as �mailing privileges� wherein each legislator, at the state taxpayers� expense, is allowed to send out mass mailings to their constituents throughout the year.�� If you have received these mailings, you have seen that there is a fine line between the information they provide and campaign literature.�� This perk should end, and state legislators should be expected to disseminate information to their constituents through other resources to include local legislative meetings and the news media.�

The State Statutes on Mailing Privileges can be found at the following website� http://www.cga.ct.gov/olm/guides/guide/admin.htm#mail

Here are some facts provided by the State on the mailing privileges of our State elected legislators �� Each State Rep is allowed 500 pieces a week plus 3,125 annually over that amount. This equates to 29,125 pieces of mail annually for each State Rep.� Each State Senator is allowed 1,000 pieces a week plus 12,500 over that annually. This equates to 64,500 pieces of mail annually for each State Senator.� The postage for these mailings was budgeted at $1.0 million in 2004.� This year $1.2 million is budgeted.�� Of the four caucuses, each caucus is responsible for the production of the weekly mailers they issue. The cost is absorbed within their total budgeted amount. Production of annual district-wide mailers is paid by Office of Legislative Management.�� Postage for all mass mailings is paid by OLM, as stated above.� Some caucuses do the entire weekly mailers with outside vendors, some do a partial amount with outside vendors and one caucus does the entire process in house. District-wide mailers are all developed by outside contractors. The total outside printing costs for the caucus weekly mailers was $65,197 for last fiscal year. For the district-wide mailers, the current fiscal year projection is $242,270.� Keep in mind that these costs do not include the personnel paid by State tax dollars to facilitate these mailings.�

Thank you for your continued support of the Federation.� We will soon be announcing our next meeting and look forward to your attendance.�

Susan Kniep,� President, Website http://ctact.org/ , email fctopresident@ctact.org, 860-524-6501��