2001 Public Hearing Transcripts

July 17, 2001 REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE 2:00 p.m.       PRESIDING CHAIRMEN: Speaker Lyons Senator DeLuca       COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:   SENATORS: Crisco, Cappiello   REPRESENTATIVES: Ward, Currey, O'Neill       SENATOR DELUCA: Good afternoon and welcome to one of the last public hearings for the Reapportionment Committee. I'm happy to have you all here this afternoon and with me so far on the Committee today are Senator David Cappiello, Senator Joseph Crisco, Republican House Leader, Bob Ward, Representative Melodie Currey and Representative Art O'Neill. We're missing a couple of our members but I'm sure they'll be along as soon as they have a moment to get here. I'm sure they're tied up.   We will not be imposing any time limits on speakers but we ask you to be courteous, knowing that there are others behind you and keep your remarks as brief and to the point. We appreciate you taking the time to come here today. We will stay here as long as we can this afternoon and then we have another hearing this evening, the last of five, six, which would be a 7:00 p.m. this evening.   So with that, I will call our first person who is Representative Pam Sawyer.   REPRESENTATIVE SAWYER: Good afternoon. My name is Representative Pam Sawyer and I'm a House member representing the Towns of Bolton, Andover, Hebron, Marlborough and part of Vernon.   Everyone loves a story and a small town usually has one or two. In 1996 there was a primary, a Congressional primary. Two people by the name of Ed Munster and a local character by the name of Andrew Norton ran in this primary. And we'd like to say that Andrew Norton won by a margin of four to one, but also literally he won four to one.   In the Town of Bolton the Second Congressional has a very small piece carved out of that particular town. The town only has 5,000 people in it, has about 2,600 people registered to vote and in the small chunk they have about 180 people registered to vote in the Second Congressional Portion.   In that particular primary, it was only in the Second Congressional and they had to hold a full primary. On that day only five people came out to vote.   When we look at the cost in a small town, it really begins to pinch the pocketbook where we had a cost on that day in 1996 of $1,200 with only five people voting, it came out to $246 per voter.   When you look at going closer to today, the 2000 presidential primary, we found that with the First and the Second Congressional, we cannot hold them in the same place, they have to be held in two separate polling places which means we have to open two buildings. The cost was $1,400 and they found that two-thirds went to the larger and one-third went to the smaller Second Congressional piece.   In the presidential primary, only 14 people came out to vote and it ended up being $34 per voter, and in contrast to the rest of the town that came out in the First Congressional District it was $2.94 per voter. And I know it's hard to put that just in figures of dollars and cents, but in a small town where you look at $2,000, $3,000, $2,000, $1,000 for each of these primaries and you have to set up two separate facilities, it's very hard when you're talking about such small numbers. It certainly could be handled in one.   So what I'd like to ask today when you're considering the divisions for the Congressional districts, please consider the small towns. And if I could ask that you consider them as whole towns. It makes a big difference in their pocketbook when it comes down to the limited funds that they do have for primaries and full elections.   I'd like to also say that I live in a district that's a swing district. Ten years ago we were in the Second Congressional and the Town of Bolton and a couple of the other small towns in my district. Presently we are in the First Congressional District. So I have experience in both. And under that, both times for a long time it was the same Congressional people seated.   So I'd like to say that I feel that having had the experience, it was better for the small towns being lumped with the Second Congressional District if you're looking at the swing towns on the border there, if you have to juggle towns, whole towns. There is more of a commonality with the small towns in the Second Congressional District if you're looking at the Towns of Andover, Bolton, Hebron and Marlborough.   And I'd like to thank you very much for the time that you have put into this very serious matter and I look forward to hearing what your results are. Thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Representative. Just a minute. Senator Crisco.   SEN. CRISCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just out of curiosity, it's no big thing, I live in a town that's small and it's split and we don't have two buildings for polling places, all we do is have one polling place and people come in and if you're in the Fifth District you go in one line. If you're the Third District, you go in another line. This has been mentioned several times, so I thought it difficult to comprehend why you have to open two buildings. It's just a question.   REP. SAWYER: Because of the limited open community space in the town there wasn't two separate rooms in one building that was able to be used. So what had to happen because most of the machines were stored at the Town Hall and there's one community room, they had to have a second handicapped access place. They were told by the Secretary of the State that they had to have a separate facility and they took that to mean a separate building.   SEN. CRISCO: Well, maybe someone should talk to the Town of Woodbridge because we have one room and we have two districts vote.   REP. SAWYER: We were told that that would not be acceptable.   SEN. CRISCO: It's been going on for years. Thank you. That's just for your information.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Senator. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Representative.   REP. SAWYER: Thank you, Senator.   SEN. DELUCA: Our next is David Borowy to be followed by Jeff Nichols.   AL ADINOLFI: As you know, I'm not David Borowy. David Borowy is the Mayor of Cheshire. He got called away just before this meeting and he asked if you would be so kind as to let me read his statement into the record.   SEN. DELUCA: That's fine. Just identify yourself.   AL ADINOLFI: My name is Al Adinolfi, a resident of Cheshire. Thank you members of the Reapportionment Committee for your time today. As Mayor of the Town of Cheshire, I'm proud of our 28,500 citizens. We also host many state facilities such as the largest prison population and other state training facilities.   I am asking you today to consider that as a member in good standing of the community called Connecticut, we'd like to have a local voice in Hartford. The reality of the situation is that we don't have a person who lives in Cheshire representing us in Hartford. That is because of the fact that ten years ago at the last redistricting broke Cheshire into three assembly districts.   I feel that a town of 28,500 people deserves a district that is wholly Cheshire. I think that the benefit of daily contact at the grocery store, video store and just driving on the same roads would be an advantage to our citizens. The State of Connecticut should have such a voice from such a loyal town that does its share for the state. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. David J. Borowy, Mayor of Cheshire.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you, Sir. Jeff Nicholas to be followed by Representative Art Feltman. It's nice to see someone from my neighboring town come up. Yes, welcome.   JEFF NICHOLAS: Good afternoon, Lou. I'm Jeff Nicholas and I'm the Democratic First Selectman of Bethlehem. In Bethlehem, like in other small towns across Connecticut, we pride ourselves in being bipartisan. It's not just a slogan, it's a way of life. We put progress before partisanship and we build support and reach a consensus and we make the needed improvements to our towns and communities.   And today I'm speaking to you in the spirit of bipartisanship. It is important for this Committee to realize that after redistricting is over, one member of Congress will not have his or her seat.   It's safe to say that all the Congressional Districts will change substantially as you add enough people to insure that each district has 681,113 residents.   It's my request today that you, too, follow our example of bipartisanship and draw a Congressional map that does not force my Republican Congresswoman Nancy Johnson to run against Democratic Congressman Jim Maloney. Both Representative Johnson and Maloney have developed a reputation for outstanding constituent service. Both are influential members of our delegation. Congressman Maloney is now our most senior member in the Connecticut delegation on two important committees, Armed Services and Financial Service and his service on the Armed Services Committee is crucial to Connecticut employers like UTC and Sikorsky and by serving on the Financial Services Committee, Maloney watches out for one of Connecticut's longest and well known business, our insurance companies. His work aids Connecticut financial institutions like Peoples' Bank and Webster.   Likewise, Congresswoman Johnson on the other hand is a member of the important Ways and Means Committee and she chairs the Health Care Subcommittee. And for a state like Connecticut and some of our largest employers like Aetna and Cigna, having Representative Johnson on that Committee is very valuable to these companies and the thousands of jobs they create.   One of the goals of redistricting should be to keep these experienced, influential people like Representatives Johnson and Maloney serving Connecticut residents. And to draw these two members into the same Congressional District is going to eliminate one of our most effective members of Congress.   I think a delegation without either Johnson or Maloney is going to be detrimental to the state, its industries, its employees for all would suffer without having their type of advocacy and the experience they bring to the job.   Seniority has its strengths and it does take a new member of Congress a while to master the legislative process of Washington, D. C. and to build relationships with other members, Committee chairs and labor and business organizations that have a tremendous impact back in the district.   I remember as I was graduating from high school and when I was in college, when I was in law school, Nancy Johnson has always been my Congresswoman in the Sixth District and it would be a loss for Connecticut if she were forced to run and lose possibly against Jim Maloney.   We would set our state back if we were to blatantly disregard the impact of these Committee assignments and after all, for those of you here who have served on Committee and have been Committee chairs here in Hartford, you understand the power and the ability you have. And that analogy holds true with the United States trillion dollar budgets as much as it does with Connecticut's billion dollar budgets.   In fact, even though Connecticut sends to Washington the most money per capita because of our state's very high income levels, we still rank 25th among all states in how much we get back per capita and I think this is a testament to their effectiveness and their seniority.   I don't consider myself a demographic specialist. I am not. I've read articles about the impact of the census to know that the western side of the state and Fairfield County was the epicenter of Connecticut's growth over the last ten years and this remarkable growth accounted for 55,922 more people and nearly half of Connecticut's 118,449 residents. The Fifth District is now the largest Congressional district in the state.   Growth and lack thereof are points that can't be disputed. It would seem to me that the Redistricting Committee has a way to preserve both Representative Johnson and Maloney by looking to expand their districts while eliminating or splitting the current Second District and creating two eastern Connecticut districts comprised of small towns.   Maintaining bipartisanship and preserving Connecticut's seniority should be the goals of this Committee and I respectfully ask this Committee to honor my request and nor force Representative Johnson or Representative Maloney to have to run against each other as incumbents with seniority.   And I thank you for your time and efforts and I wish you good luck because this is most difficult.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Senator Cappiello.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you for coming to testify. Just a clarification. You had mentioned that seniority is an important issue and that Connecticut gets, ranks 25th out of the 50 states in what we receive back from D.C. We actually rank 50th out of 50 so right now our seniority, even though we have some senior members, we are not receiving back, you know, we are not in the middle of the pack, we're at the end of the pack.   But, eventually, these --   JEFF NICHOLAS: Could I answer that?   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Sure.   JEFF NICHOLAS: I don't agree with you. I know we get back a small percentage based on the huge amounts of taxes we pay and we have the highest average incomes in the country and we pay huge amounts of taxes.    We rank last based on what we get back based on what we've paid. But if you look at what we get per capita, we are either 24th, 25th or 26th. And if you're going to make reference to our sending the most money per capita, you must consider that we rank 25th or 26th, whatever, based on what we get back again per capita.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: That may be true but proportionately for what we send down there, we rank 50th for what we get back. Someone makes then half as much as we do and maybe the same as we do, but we're sending that much more down to Washington, D. C., so we really rank 50th.   I understand why you'd want to protect the two Congress persons because none of us really want to put two people, two incumbents in the same district. We're forced to. But when you talk about splitting the Second District, eventually there are going to be, Congress people are going to move on, the incumbents won't be there and you're left with the districts.   And what you'd have in the Second District is a district split in half with Hartford in one and New Haven in the other. And my question is, you said there would be small town districts. But there would be larger cities within those districts.   The argument that was given to us last week at the public hearing in Norwich is that they feared that the districts would be dominated by those two larger cities. Do you know how we remedy that situation?   JEFF NICHOLAS: I don't. And I know it's a difficult answer. It's difficult no matter how you look at it and everybody up here probably is going to have a different opinion.   I don't know how much influence a gigantic district comprised of all small towns would have, either. I think that's the argument in the alternative.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay. And my other question is, again seniority has been mentioned, not just tonight, a few other nights some other people have mentioned seniority.   What about the argument that was given to us that well, Congressman Maloney is a more senior member. Congressman Johnson is a more senior member. Congressman Simmons is a freshman member. He's also in the majority. Someone said the majority would actually have more say in what happens than someone who is no longer in the minority. Do you have an answer to that, or do you have any ideas on that?   JEFF NICHOLAS: I would just consider that Congressman Maloney and Johnson, based on the respective positions and the connections they've made and the networking they've done and based on their Committee assignments and the demonstrated record that we have, that they would have much more clout in Washington.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: I appreciate your answers and I appreciate you coming up. Thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Representative Ward.   REP. WARD: Thank you. You indicated that you were very clear that you would prefer that Congressman Maloney and Congressman Johnson not be in the same district. Are you also indicating that Congressman Maloney not be in a district with Congressman Shays or that Congresswoman Johnson not be in a district with Congressman Larson? So you're sort of saying the only real fair system is if DeLauro runs against Simmons or DeLauro runs against Shays, or, I'm just trying to pin down what you're asking us.   JEFF NICHOLAS: I really haven't extrapolated to include every conceivable race or every conceivable scenario. I'm just indicating that I know with regard to the Sixth District that Congresswoman Johnson nearly as long as I've been a vote has been a Congresswoman and has built up a great deal of clout and I believe that she has a great deal of seniority and is one of the most powerful women in the United States at this point.   And if you look at the growth on the chart farthest to your left, you'll see that the Fifth District has, I think, increased by the greatest percentage and is the largest congressional district. And just based on those factors and Jim Maloney's seniority and the work he's done, that those two districts be undisturbed but I have not considered every analysis or every conceivable race and I know that's your job.   REP. WARD: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Senator Crisco, do you have a comment?   SEN. CRISCO: I just wanted to add, this is not subjective or personal, but basically what you're stating, and I know it's not your intention, is that the other four Congress people don't count and I think that once you look at the whole objective, you're entitled to your opinion. But you (inaudible) that Representative Simmons used to be a member of the legislative body and is doing an excellent job.   I appreciate what you're saying but I think we have to be very sensitive that we have other people that are doing a great job and Representative Johnson and Maloney are personal friends of mine, but I find it kind of difficult just to accept that argument. I would say we have a job to do and that is our responsibility. But you do have two other people out there. The only reason I mention is because we've heard this repeatedly and unfortunately you were the one that mentioned it again today and I just want to bring it to your attention.   JEFF NICHOLAS: And in no way do I mean to impugn their representations or the jobs that they're doing. You should just recognize that I'm from a very small town, Bethlehem, Lou's district and I received Nancy's newsletter so I'm very well aware and I work with her and I work with Lou and I have an office in Jim Maloney's district and I run into many of his constituents who speak most highly of him and that is why I'm here. But I don't mean to impugn anyone else.   SEN. DELUCA: Just one last thing, Jeff, that I would say. There are two absolutes in this process in regards to the Congressional districts. One that you mentioned, they each have to have approximately 681,100 in change and that would be as close to even as possible, according to federal guidelines. That's an absolute. We must do that.   The other absolute is, no matter which we cut it, there is going to be a minimum of two Congress people in the same district, possibly it could even happen to be three if we wanted to work hard at it. But I'm saying, it's a minimum of two.   So, I appreciate your respect for yours as being part of that area and being familiar with both of them, I would probably agree. But so doesn't everyone else in every other district and every other hearing and that presents the problem we are faced with, unfortunately, that we will still have to resolve. But in the final result, two people will end up in the same district.   Thank you very much for coming.   JEFF NICHOLAS: Thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Next is Representative Art Feltman, to be followed by Joe Marinan. I hope I'm pronouncing names properly. I know I did yours, Art, but.   Before you do, if I may, I just want to say that the Speaker Moira Lyons has joined us on the Committee. A little late, but she's here. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you, Art.   SEN. FELTMAN: Thank you, Senator DeLuca, Representative Lyons, Representative Ward, other distinguished members of the Committee. I'm speaking this afternoon on behalf of both myself and Representative Marie Kirkley-Bey who's seated behind me who are the Co-Chairs of the Hartford Legislative Delegation and Representative Kirkley-Bey is signed up but she's asked if she could be taken off the list, something like (inaudible). It isn't necessarily a safe assumption.   I want to speak about the drawing of the lines of both the Congressional and the Legislative levels, specifically as it relates to the City and Region of Hartford. First to the issue of the Region. We now have a Congressman from the First Congressional District based in East Hartford who represents most of the Hartford Region.   We understand that the district lines have to shift and that that district will have to grow. It is our feeling that we would like to see the Capitol Region of our state continue to be represented by one Congress person and for a number of reasons.   One is that the Capitol Region thinks of itself as one unit. We have, you know, transportation, the transportation infrastructure is based on the idea of essential core and spokes radiating out from that core. The economics in terms of where the job centers are and the residential patterns that relate to where those jobs are, the media set up relating to the Hartford Region, people in the Hartford Region tend to read one newspaper on a daily basis and they tend to listen to one TV station or tune in to one TV station and a major radio station and there isn't what's known, what you describe as a community of interest in the Hartford region.   It would be my suggestion that since the First Congressional District needs to be expanded, that part of the Hartford Capitol Region that is not presently incorporated in the boundaries of the First Congressional District is the area around Bradley Airport which we believe to be an integral part of the Capitol Region, that that airport does relate very strongly and directly to Hartford businesses that people very much are coming into the airport or to do business in the Capitol Region and that there be, and that the people who live in that vicinity very often do commute to jobs in the Hartford area and vice-versa. There are a number of people from Hartford who commute to jobs up at the airport.   So since there does need to be a realignment of the boundary of the Congressional District that that region would be a logical one since it does fit within the community of interest definition for a political district.   With regard to the issue of legislative plan, redistricting plan, we realize that within Hartford we have lost population, that that stated population loss is a little bit overstated. As many of you know from reading the newspapers, the University of Hartford which contains a substantial population was erroneously excluded from the count that was released preliminarily by the Census Bureau. However, everyone admits that this was an error. It was an error that unfortunately seems to take place every ten years where all the students and others who live on the campus of the University of Hartford are counted because they're from an address of the school as West Hartford, they were counted into West Hartford when they in fact live exclusively within the City of Hartford. So the loss of population is overstated.   But I would like to express very strongly that we believe that the City of Hartford has problems that are the most that are extreme and you know, we've been reading the newspaper and we know that the problems in our schools are extreme, the problems in our streets are extreme, housing blight, other issues and we do, while some of those are problems that may spill over into our suburban neighbors, they really are at their most, they're expressed in the highest definition in the City of Hartford and we feel that the City of Hartford does think of itself as a community that those of us who live in the City of Hartford, who represent it at the State Capitol are those who are most familiar and live day by day, minute by minute and hour by hour with those very pressing problems of living in an urbanized environment and that we feel that the people in the City of Hartford are most effectively represented by, if at all possible, by legislators who do reside within the City of Hartford because we live with those problems day to day.    And there is a community of interest within the City of Hartford in resolving those problems and we have, I think, demonstrated that community of interest in our posture here in the Capitol and the unity that this delegation has shown as you know, many of you who are in the Legislature have experienced during the budget process. The Hartford Board of Education transformation, other issues, we have been a unified group because we do live in the City and understand the City despite our maybe perhaps racial and gender differences, we understand the City's problems the same way.   And that is not the way that the City of Hartford's present district did. Significant portions of our city were ten years ago, were carved out and were annexed to legislators from other districts. In the case of the south end of Hartford of which I'm most familiar, there was a situation ten years ago where an incumbent legislator, the story goes, was concerned about reelection prospects and were to avoid because of a fear that he would not be reelected in his home turf, a significant portion of Hartford was annexed on to his district in an effort to provide what we're seeing as safer votes. Although that legislator did not prevail in that election and his strategy, although we can understand it, was not successful because the suburban constituency still did not wish to see him back. We're still left with the consequences of that redistricting today in that about half of the south end of Hartford is represented by legislators who are suburban based. And there are other examples of that.   So we, what I'm trying to ask of the Committee is that you keep Hartford together. We do see ourselves as one community. We read the same newspaper. We have the same transportation. We go after neighborhood meetings. We are represented by the same people at City Hall and we do feel that for all of our troubles, we're in this together and we're going to rise and fall together and we hope to be spoken for at the State Capitol by the same people who live in our communities.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Representative. Any questions? Representative O'Neill.   REP. O'NEILL: Right now, Hartford has, I think, the largest number of border crossings of districts and what I'm getting from you is, if I understand what you're saying, you'd like to see that number reduced or at least not expanded in terms of creating districts that would cross the borders, either expanded in terms in terms of the number or the sections of districts that include parts of Hartford to have larger parts of suburban areas included in them. Is that what I'm correct in understanding what you're saying?   REP. FELTMAN: What I'm saying is that we would like to see the residents of the City of Hartford represented by leaders who live in Hartford. In some cases that may, all that may require is to have sections of the City that were carved out to be, to not be carved out. In other areas, it may mean that there would need to be border crossings but we don't want to see significant sections of Hartford in order to be able to come up with the right numbers.   But in no case do we want to see a Hartford resident represented by a non-Hartford resident if that's possible.   REP. O'NEILL: Okay. I think I've got it. Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Further questions or comments? Thank you, Representative.   REP. FELTMAN: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Next is Joe Marinan to be followed by Jim Goggins. I hope I'm pronouncing your name properly.   JOE MARINAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I'm Joe Marinan from the City of Meriden. I've been Mayor for the past eight years, of this city. I come before the Redistricting Committee today to respectfully request that you recognize the unique relationship between Meriden and Waterbury in the Valley.   Keep these cities in the Valley together, the same Congressional District, the Fifth. Meriden is the third largest city in the Fifth District and is closely connected to Waterbury via I-84 and I-691. Indeed, Waterbury and Meriden are only one town apart separated solely by Cheshire, which is itself in the Fifth Congressional District.   Because Meriden is only 14 miles away from Waterbury, commuters live and work in each of the respective cities. Our proximity has led us to develop a strong community of interest. Mass transportation has been and should be at the forefront of bringing Meriden and Waterbury together again.   Many years ago, a trolley ran between these two great cities and demonstrated even long ago we were connected with Waterbury. Today, the two cities are very conveniently connected by I-691 and I-84. Meriden-Waterbury also share a proud industrial heritage. Meriden is known as the Silver City and Waterbury, the Brass City.   With the transition from manufacturing based economy to a service and information based economy, Meriden-Waterbury are encountering the same challenges and need to remain coordinated at the federal level to effectively meet education and economic development challenges and to secure the necessary federal funds.   In addition, highway funds for I-691 and I-84 should also be centrally facilitated through one Congressional office.   Waterbury also helps us in other ways. It is in Waterbury where many of our young students receive their education at the UConn Waterbury Branch, or at the Naugatuck Valley Community College. Our many connections with Waterbury make it entirely not appropriate for Meriden to be placed anywhere else.   We do not desire to be included with Hartford or New Haven. Within those Congressional Districts, Meriden, due to its distance from the larger cities in those districts would be just an after thought. We are located nearly equally distant between those two cities. It wouldn't make any sense to put us in either district for we don't read in great numbers the Courant or the Register and for myself, I just can't bring myself to read the Waterbury Republican and we don't have a long history with those cities like we do with Waterbury, a very close neighbor.   Now should we be located in the Second District. Meriden simply has nothing in common with the small towns of eastern Connecticut. Besides our economic and transportation links, Meriden and Waterbury are connected with the Latino community. One of the biggest surprises this year for some were the census results that showed a dramatic increase in the Hispanic population throughout Meriden and Waterbury.   No longer are Hispanics living in one distinctive area of my community. They are enjoying the fruits of their labor in using their emerging economic status and becoming part of the emerging middle class of Meriden. The same holds true I am told, of Waterbury.   This community of interest should not be separated for political purposes. One of the state's major Hispanic newspaper, El Tiempo, is published in my community and has extensive circulation in nearby Waterbury. Our Hispanic population worships together, attends the same community and cultural events, read the same Hispanic newspapers and listen to the same Hispanic radio stations. Hispanics in our communities have grown in size and have grown stronger together both economically and politically.   Now is not the time for you to splinter this emerging group and its power base by separating them into two separate and distinct Congressional districts. Our two cities have long established their connections to each other and that connection should not be severed during this redistricting process.   I respectfully ask that you honor our community of interest and keep Meriden and Waterbury in the same Congressional District. Thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you, Sir.   JOE MARINAN: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Jim Goggins, to be followed by Al Simon.   JIM GOGGIN: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Goggin and I serve as Personnel Director for the Borough of Naugatuck. I'm here today representing a bipartisan group of elected officials from the Naugatuck Valley, including my mayor, Joan Taft of Naugatuck, Mayor Jim DellaVolpe of Ansonia, First Selectman Susan Cable of Beacon Falls, Mayor Mark Garofalo of Derby and First Selectman Scott Barden of Seymour.   The Naugatuck Valley is composed of seven cities and towns abutting the Naugatuck River, including Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Oxford, Ansonia, Derby and Shelton. The Valley is very much a community of interest.   We share and are a part of the Council of Governments of Central Naugatuck Valley, the Valley Regional Planning Agency, the Valley Transit District, the Valley United Way and the Greater Valley Chamber of Commerce. We also have a hospital and not one, but two weekly newspapers, the Valley Gazette and the Valley Times.   Our families commute on Route 8 and we share a proud history of long established high school athletic rivalries and now in the information age, our region is more connected than ever in the worldwide web in a web site devoted to the interest of the Valley which is www.electronicvally.org.   The strength and unity of the Valley was recently nationally recognized and honored as we were together named an All-American city.   I am here this afternoon, then, not only to describe the special pride we take in being residents of the Valley and I'm happy that one of our own, Senator Joe Crisco is on the Redistricting Committee. It is important, furthermore, that during redistricting, our community stay together.   I am already aware of the problems and difficulties created when a community is divided into different districts. Currently, Naugatuck is served by two State Senators and two State Representatives and this causes confusion amongst our constituents. The problems associated with redistricting should not be further compounded by dividing the Congressional Districts serving the Naugatuck Valley.   I respectfully ask that members of the Redistricting Committee to keep the entire Naugatuck Valley together in one Congressional District connected to the City of Waterbury. The Naugatuck Valley has always had a special relationship with the City of Waterbury. Route 8 and the Naugatuck River and the Valley Rail Line connect the Valley to Waterbury.   The cities of Naugatuck and Waterbury are both part of the Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Planning Agency and are also joint members of the same Council of Governments. In addition, the Waterbury newspaper, the Waterbury-Republican American has a wide readership in the Valley and its Valley bureau office is based in Naugatuck.   Naugatuck Valley Community College and the University of Connecticut, two institutions devoted to higher learning and educating many of our Valley residents are both located in Waterbury. The Naugatuck Valley special relationship with Waterbury dates back to the turn of the century as the Valley and Waterbury share the same industrial heritage of brass and copper manufacturing and fabrication.   Finally, Waterbury has served through the Route 8 interstate 84 connection as the gateway to the rest of the state for the Naugatuck Valley and according to the Connecticut State Registrar in the manual it says 1911, six of the seven towns in the Valley, with the exception of Shelton, have been with Waterbury in the same Congressional District.   The tradition of ninety years and our special relationship with Waterbury should be preserved. For us to continue our success, we need to continue to be linked together. Our ability to work together would be diminished if we needed to coordinate our efforts for federal grants for education, economic development, transportation improvements and brownfields revitalization through two different members of Congress.   The cities and towns in the Valley and Waterbury have stayed together through fires, floods and pollution and recovery of the Naugatuck River. And we have emerged stronger than ever.   So I ask that the members of the Redistricting Committee honor the spirit of the Valley and keep our cities and towns together in one Congressional District anchored with and by the City of Waterbury. Thank you so much.   REP. LYONS: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Thank you, Sir. The next speaker is Al Simon to be followed by Steve Cassano.   AL SIMON: Good afternoon. My name is Al Simon. I'm a member of the Windsor Town Council. First, I want to recognize that you have very difficult decisions to make and I appreciate that you probably won't be able to make everybody happy.   A lot of the requests have come for some very big decisions and how to redistrict the Congressional Districts. But I'm going to ask you for something a little bit smaller.   Windsor is a town of 28,000 people. We are currently represented in the State Legislature by two State Senators and three House members and Windsor comprises a majority in none of those districts. We are the only town of our size where we do not have a majority legislative district. And in fact, I do believe that a town of our size ought to have a district within its own borders and that's what I'm here to ask for.   It wasn't always this way. We did have a majority legislative district until 1981 two redistrictings ago. Democrats and Republicans in Windsor are supportive of this proposal and in fact four of the five Representatives we have, Representatives Eberle, Carr, Fahrbach, Senator Coleman have all expressed support for this effort. I don't have an answer from Senator Kissel. I don't know that he's opposed or for.   But I think the basic facts of how districts are set up in this state really lend credence to our request that we should have a majority legislative district and hope that you'll consider that. Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you. Steve Cassano, to be followed by Walter Pawelkiewicz.   STEVE CASSANO: Thank you very much. This is an unusual setting. Usually to come here to testify the garage is filled, the wind chill factor is 20 below zero. So it's a nice change.   Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We applaud your efforts to establish new Congressional and Legislative District boundaries based on the results of the year 2000 census.   I serve as the Mayor of the Town of Manchester and Chairman of the Capitol Region Council of Governments. In both capacities, I see on a regular basis the importance of how these district's lines are drawn.   The Legislative Districts are obviously extremely important to our cities and towns but today I would like to focus on the Congressional Districts because of the impact of the loss of one seat in Congress will have on Connecticut.   I want to state clearly at the beginning, that for us it's not an issue of politics, Democrats or Republicans. Currently, the 29 towns in our Capitol Region are represented in three different Congressional Districts, the First, the Second and the Sixth. We have been served well by all of the Congressional Representatives that have served our region and often it helps us to be able to work with Congressional Representatives of both parties. So our motivation in testifying today is not political. It is motivated by geographic, functional connectivity.   In recent years, the orientation of the Greater Hartford Area has grown ever stronger toward the north, especially in the transportation planning work that we do, but also as a result of the way our regional economy operates. We have forged stronger ties with our neighbors to the north in Springfield. Much of the work that we do with our Congressional Representatives and with various federal agencies is geared to those transportation and economic ties.   Bradley International Airport is increasingly recognized as an important economic engine and transportation facility for Greater Hartford and Springfield. The proposal to provide inter-city rail service connecting New Haven and Hartford and Springfield enjoys strong support because of this same kind of orientation.   The work of Riverfront Recapture in our region demonstrates, in our region depends in large measure on the cooperation that we built with communities north of Hartford and East Hartford, all the way up to the Pioneer Valley.   Newly created Hartford-Springfield economic partnership and the Hartford-Springfield knowledge corridor continue to forge new bonds between our region.    For all of these reasons, we respectfully recommend that in your redistricting deliberations you consider these views and develop a district for most of Greater Hartford which allows for a stronger functional connectivity, especially in terms of transportation assets and economic times.   Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Of course, I'll be glad to answer any questions.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you Mayor. Questions or comments? Representative O'Neill.   REP. O'NEILL: What you said at the beginning sort of touches on what you haven't been to all of these hearings but essentially there's a recurring theme which is in order for a community to get anything or to have success in dealing with federal programs, you really, all the broader community has to be within the same District.   And you seem to be saying that even though the Greater Hartford area is split between three Congressional Districts, you've been able to be successful in dealing with Congress in getting grants and federal funds and that sort of thing. Is that basically, am I summarizing what you said correctly?   STEVEN CASSANO: I think that's correct. I think that's probably because the individuals, the six individuals who have served have done, I think, a magnificent job of functioning as one for the best of the State of Connecticut. And so that when primarily most of our towns, the majority of our towns in the First Congressional, then the Second District and then the Sixth. If we have meetings in at least two of those we're pretty much assured that the three Representatives of those towns will in fact have interaction with each other.   The reality is, we've also gone to, in some cases, all six congressional districts, particularly to make the case for funds needed for Hartford or wherever it might be for transportation funds and so on. We feel that sometimes you've got to go beyond your own boundaries. For that matter, we've gone to Senator Chaffee when he was alive, to Rhode Island for some of the issues. So we've used the system, I think. But quite honestly it's a lot easier if we were down to maybe two, it's just easier and more functional for us to do our job.   REP. O'NEILL: But your experience has been that even with three you've been able to succeed.   STEVE CASSANO: Right.   REP. O'NEILL: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Representative Ward.   REP. WARD: Mayor,   (GAP FROM SIDE A TO SIDE B)   Enfield, Suffield, East Granby --   STEVE CASSANO: The 91 corridor. We have the new transportation --   REP. WARD: As opposed to northeast, you're more talking north.   STEVE CASSANO: North. Right.   REP. WARD: Thank you.   STEVE CASSANO: And again, the significance of that is the work that we're doing, we're meeting on a monthly basis now with Springfield, not only CROG in the Pioneer Valley as far as regional planning agencies but the chambers, different economic groups, academic institutions. There are several groups that are working together and functioning as one trying to look at the region as a region of one, that region being Springfield-Hartford as opposed to two different states with a boundary in the middle.   REP. WARD: Let me just, I don't think the Capitol Region has been too shy about asking legislators like me who live in the Third for money either.   STEVE CASSANO: That's right. We do our homework. We know where to go.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Mayor.   STEVE CASSANO: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Walter, you're next and then to be followed by Lisa Scails.   WALTER PAWELKIEWICZ: Thank you, Senator. And thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the Reapportionment Committee. I'm sorry I missed the meeting in the Second CD because I had a conflict. I have two very brief requests for the Committee.   I'd like your indulgence in keeping the 49th District of Windham-Willimantic in tact. It's a community that I've represented over the last ten years in different capacities and its population, fortunately for myself and the town has grown over the last ten years, although moderately.   I'd also like to echo and reinforce my colleagues' cry for keeping the Second Congressional District in tact and retaining its current form as much as possible.   In my years of public service, I've been in a number of different capacities, both regional and statewide where I recognize the commonality of the community interest in eastern Connecticut and I won't bore you with social, economic and demographic factors that would make that argument for us. But I do realize that you're faced with a challenge because any time you have to reduce the number of Representatives from five to four, it's going to be a difficult task.   I just hope that the fact that our basically rural small town area which sometimes gets, I wouldn't say shunted aside but maybe it does not have its needs addressed as demonstratively as other larger urban impact kind of areas and I just kind of give you two examples, Route 6 and Route 11 to kind of footnote and document that.   And I want to especially thank you for your time. I know you have many other folks that would like to speak to you and thank you for your indulgence this afternoon.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Just to mention that although you weren't there last week at the Second District you were well represented. There were quite a few people who came out to express your views.   REP. PAWELKIEWICZ: Thank you, Senator. And thank you for the pronunciation of my name. It makes me proud that my daughter married a Settia.   SEN. DELUCA: Next is Lisa Scails to be followed by Dorothy Blanche.   LISA SCAILS: Good afternoon Speaker Lyons, Senator DeLuca and the distinguished members of the Redistricting Committee. My name is Lisa Scails and I am president of the Connecticut NAACP. I appreciate this opportunity to come before you today on behalf of Connecticut State Conference of NAACP Branches representing 16 branches across the state, including the Cities of New London, Norwich, Hartford, Meriden, Wallingford, Middlesex County, New Britain, Bristol, Waterbury, Ansonia, Danbury, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, Norwalk, New Canaan and Greenwich.   Connecticut NAACP is also a major partner in the Connecticut Partnership for Fair Redistricting of which you have heard prior testimony.   Connecticut NAACP is extremely thankful of the state's redistricting committees for convening these hearings to gain insight into the concerns and recommendations of the community with respect to redrawing both the Congressional and State District lines. We are also grateful that the Committee has provided opportunity for the hearings around this state, thereby making it possible for greater participation.   I'm quite positive that no one knows better than the eight of you of its particular responsibility and of the difficult task that lies ahead. Certainly these public hearings, if taken seriously, should provide some needed direction from the people of whom all of you are represented.   Yet, at this point and in this year 2001 it is still disappointing that this same Committee has not found it necessary to do more to insure equal representation in the communities of like interest which represent are state, are protected throughout this process.   The NAACP believes redistricting to be a critical issue in the black community which has historically and continues to be at a disadvantage from the political process. As a result of the travesty played out in Florida which the NAACP believes is just a macrocosm of what has occurred throughout this country, is perhaps the most recent example of a system that is flawed.   Every form of government across this land is forced to examine closely the issues of voting rights protected for all people through election reform, campaign finance reform, voter empowerment and redistricting.   Because the right to vote is the most sacred franchise of our democracy, these hearings must challenge all people and particularly the Committee, as you carry out your work to the thorny challenge of equal representation and full participation under the law.   The larger African-American community is still faced with long-standing struggles with respect to livable wages and affordable housing, redlining when accessing credit and capital for homes and small businesses and quality education for our children and contrary to recent reports, social realities do dictate that racial profiling continues to be a problem in our community.   These shared realities, among others, does more than classify blacks, Latinos and other groups with the same concerns as community of interest. We believe it also serves as a reminder that we still live in a racially divided society and in order for there to be fairness and equal representation, in order for our government to truly reflect the growing diversity in our state, our communities need to stay together. More minorities need to be elected to office.   I've taken the opportunity to review transcripts from prior hearings. The racial makeup of our state's population is by now well known. More than half a million people represent both the African-American and Latino communities combined in our state.   The Committee's diligence toward making sure there is equal representation for all people as required, if taken seriously, these considerations and others. Also, the NAACP believes that this task is far too important to rely on the eight member Committee alone.   We are actively engaged in drawing alternative plans for the Committee's consideration. Already we have determined that it is quite possible to draw compact, contiguous and incumbency protected districts that will still preserve minority communities which we will present at a later time.   Connecticut prides itself on being progressive in the enactment of legislation in addressing certain social responsibilities. The NAACP calls upon the Committee to exercise its political prudence in meeting this challenge and keeping communities together.   Help to restore the minority voter's confidence that their vote does count and their voices can and will be heard in our proud State of Connecticut.   In the words of a veteran Alabama civil rights activist, Dr. Gwendolyn Patten, we have fought and died for the right to vote, but what good is the right if we do not have candidates to vote for?    We welcome the opportunity to assist the Committee in its work. Thank you very much for your time.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you for coming. Next is Dorothy Blanche, to be followed by Hamilton Brosious.   DOROTHY BLANCHE: I'm representing the League of Women Voters of Connecticut and we have long been involved in legislative reapportionment.   SEN. DELUCA: Excuse me, would you please repeat your name for the record, please.   DOROTHY BLANCHE: I'm Dorothy Blanche.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you.   DOROTHY BLANCHE: The election law specialist of the State League of Women Voters.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you.   DOROTHY BLANCHE: Thank you. And we have been a long time involved in legislative reapportionment and redistricting and have proposed guidelines since 1969 and I served in this capacity in 1991 and also with hearings before the legislative task force in 1995 and of course, Senator DeLuca, you have been there since the very beginning, serving as co-chair in 1995 and again today, which is important because we need continuity as well.   And the, our concern historically, and still is, is fair and equitable representation of the people of our state and we have so testified. Specifically, this fairness includes the right to vote and participate in the political process. The ability to run for public office and to choose candidates for office.   Minority representation, you have just heard a presentation of that, preserving as best possible the continuity and compactness of districts which again is very important to people. As you have heard, the integrity of political subdivisions and preserving as well a community of interest which are all affected by the redistricting plan.   And we are also concerned about methodology and I'll talk about that in a minute. Methodology was considered, especially in the 1995 legislative redistricting task force because there was great concern over the methodology that was used in 1991 and some good things came out of that that did not exist in 1991.   Plans are made available for timely review by legislators and the public before the legislative vote. That did not happen in 1991. Public hearings are conducted in Congressional Districts and after any Committee revision of the plans, that did not happen in 1991. And one assumes that all hearings and Committee meetings are conforming to FOIA for public notification. None of this occurred then and this is very important in terms of progress, in terms of what we need to have in redistricting.   But fairness also includes fair representation in the reapportionment redistricting committees themselves. Public hearings and the right to review plans in a timely manner are important but meaningless if the decision making committees are not reflective of Connecticut's Legislature or the state's population.   The Committee of 2001 is composed of legislative leaders, six men, two women, which is a big increase from our one in 1991 and a very competent, capable person as well, all Caucasian and no minorities. I would hope that after this session and this job of redistricting is done, that perhaps another redistricting task force might be taken up in a couple of years after you have all survived what is going on here to review this process.   I wanted to add an addendum after watching much of the testimony on television, for which, again, we did not have in 1991 and the district hearings in New Haven, Waterbury, Bridgeport and Norwich areas which we watched at 3:00 a.m and 4:00 a.m. I might add. The concerns of the League of Women Voters regarding contiguity and minority representation were repeated by local citizens in each area. This is a great concern.    And also a great concern as we're hearing now are the differences that exist between the ten year time period of the last redistricting which need to be carefully considered and those would be primarily the ones you've heard here that contiguity is affected by infrastructure changes such as Routes 8, 84 and others and they were repeatedly mentioned as affecting Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden and now other areas that we now hear.   The increase in minority population and its concentration, especially Latino, and its ability to share in fair representation was a concern throughout all of these hearings and was a concern of ours in 1991 as well.    The increase in lower Fairfield County population, much of which is surrounded by New York State or Long Island Sound mandating eastern expansion is important and could profoundly affect cities such as Bridgeport with large minority populations as well as other more suburban areas.   We appreciate immensely having been involved in this ourselves, the difficulty of your task and we respect each and every one of you on the Commission and thank you for the many hours of work that it has already entailed and will entail. And thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Questions or comments? Thank you very much. Excuse me, Representative O'Neill.   REP. O'NEILL: That's all right. I just wanted to thank you. In your letter you referred to all of us as being legislative leaders and I think that's the first time I've ever been characterized as a legislative leader, so thanks.   DOROTHY BLANCHE: Well, I took it out of the book all right.   SEN. DELUCA: Well, you brought a little sunshine to his life today. Thank you for coming.   DOROTHY BLANCHE: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Hamilton Brosious to be followed by Al Adinolfi.   HAMILTON BROSIOUS: My name is Hamilton Brosious. Can everybody hear me because in my fading years, I've had a little difficulty.   SEN. DELUCA: Yes, we can hear you, Sir.   HAMILTON BROSIOUS: I live at 46 Jeremiah Road in Sandy Hook. I've been a resident of Connecticut for over 40 years. I think the opportunity just to give my opinions to this Committee is that when you're considering something as important as redistricting is a fine, fine example of democracy in action and it's an opportunity that I appreciate and I believe that most people in the world envy.   Much has been said and written about the role of partisanship in making a final determination of the makeup of the new districts of the state. I have no misgivings whatsoever to be identified as a partisan in this matter, for I am fiercely partisan but for fairness, logic and objectivity when it comes to setting these new Congressional Districts which will be in place for ten years or more decades to come.   As I was riding here this morning from Sandy Hook, I began thinking of a number of things and one thing I would just want to comment on, there is a concept, or a perception that seems to be rampant throughout the state that the decision that is arrived by this Committee for the redistricting will be the product of politics as usual. And I don't believe that. I don't believe that for one minute. I'm old enough and have been around long enough to have a great deal of faith in the elected and as you said, leaders of the Legislature for people from each party representing the two separate Houses, I think is an outstanding choice and I support you no matter what your decision is, I will endorse it.   Now, the two criteria that in making the redistricting choice which meets my fairness and logic and objectivity test are one, population dynamics and the second, commonality of interest.   These numbers you people have heard so many times that you can probably hear them in your sleep, but just for my own benefit I'll repeat them. During the past ten years there's been an influx of 118,000 new residents in the state. Now, nearly 62,000 of these, or 52% of this growth has occurred in the Fourth and the Fifth Districts while the remaining growth of 56,200 some, or 48% has been divided rather unevenly, but divided between the remaining current four districts.   This shift in population from the eastern part of the state to the west, continues a trend which has been in evidence since the addition of the Sixth Congressional District in 1964. There is no evidence that this population shift from east to west will not continue unabated in the new decade we have entered.    Today, because their growth in population and influence in the past ten years, both of these two districts merit their retention as separate districts. As this population disparity between the two districts grows and the new remaining three districts, the wisdom of such a choice will be evident.   We and you, particularly, are now faced with the very unattractive task of reducing our Congressional Districts with an equally unattractive loss of representation in federal government. To put it in perspective, if a state like Illinois with 35 or 40 or so representatives loses one, the percentage of loss is quite, not very important. However, in our state we've lost 17% of our representatives and that's 17% of our influence, our clout, our representation in Washington.   So I feel that it's now incumbent on this Committee to insure that the remaining five districts will each be as strong, vital and meaningful as possible and the old order is changed. And, anyway, I'll -- so any district, any decision on the makeup of Connecticut's new district must give real consideration to the slow growth which forced us into the redistricting situation.   So applying the fairness, logic and objectivity criteria to the decision can only result in maintaining the integrity of the two districts, the Fourth and the Fifth and divide the remaining First, Second, Third and Sixth Districts into three new districts. This suggested division recognizes the inescapable fact that the minimal growth in these four districts was responsible for the state's loss of one Congressional District.   In future decades, the continued growth of the Fourth and Fifth Districts will only enhance the logic of my suggested redistricting proposal.   Now the Fourth and Fifth Congressional Districts are each separate and distinct. They're bound together by their own commonality of ethnic and racial background, financial and industrial affiliations and geographical adjacency. Each district has its own core persona.   The Fourth District with its great wealth and economic influence and linked by Metro North to New York is vastly different from the neighboring Fifth District, fastest growing of all the districts with the blue collar towns such as Danbury, Derby, Waterbury and Meriden and the district's strong Housatonic Valley orientation.   Now to maintain these separate groups of communities while raising the population of each to the requisite 681,000 is obviously a difficult and challenging task. One benefit to the Committee if they chose this in its numerical calculations is the fact that since the Fourth and Fifth are already the largest, they will require less infusion from the other districts to reach their required total.   So in conclusion, and I'd just like to comment on what's been said before. I know that proposals which suggested eliminating the Second District were wrongly criticized last week in Norwich. And this is certainly understandable because such a decision would be unattractive to the deleted district. But however stated, these criticisms only reflect a natural desire to maintain a status quo.   But to add 100 to 115,000 more small town population to a district which is already comprised of nearly all small towns would result in a district with relatively little influence in Washington and might prove unfair to its residents and to the state.   My plan for redistricting, not really a plan, does not offer any suggestion for dividing the four districts into three but only asks the preservation of the two dynamic gross districts, the Fourth and the Fifth. The district partitioning of 1964 has served us well, but now the past must step aside for the future.   This Committee has an opportunity to make a decision that will applauded throughout the state by that large majority of citizens who believe that the creation of new districts with effective representation giving effect to the population dynamics and commonality of interest is in the best interest of the state as a whole and one would hope that such would be the Commission's goal.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir.   HAMILTON BROSIOUS: And I thank you all very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Questions or comments? Thank you very much for your suggestions and your kind words about the Committee. And next is Al Adinolfi to be followed by Norman Primus.   AL ADINOLFI: Good afternoon and hello to all members of the Reapportionment Committee. I'm back again. I'm here today with the hope of convincing you to consider giving the Town of Cheshire at least one State House District within Cheshire's borders.   Cheshire is not in a vacuum. We have reached out within our state and house many state facilities such as correctional institutions, a firing range, a correction officers training facility and a canine training facility.   Cheshire has a population of well over 28,000 and is the largest city in Connecticut without a representative from within its own borders. Surrounding towns such as Waterbury, Meriden, Wolcott, Hamden, Prospect, Wallingford and Southington all have at least one representative that lives in the town.   The districts that have been set up in each of these towns almost guarantees representation by someone from that town. Cheshire has three House Districts that it shares with other towns. Prospect, Bethany and Cheshire compromise the 89th. Wallingford and Cheshire the 90th and Hamden, Wallingford and Cheshire the 103rd.   The demographics of these towns within these three districts are very different. Although some of the apportionment in some of the towns within the district are small, a Representative cannot ignore the needs of the whole towns that one represents. It is asking a lot of a legislator to handle the diverse problems and issues facing towns of the size that Cheshire shares within these districts.   This Committee has the ability to recognize the need for a House District entirely within Cheshire. This Committee can rectify an inequity that deprives Cheshire of a loyal homebody representing us in the State House of Representatives. Cheshire voters have always been bipartisan when it comes to state elections. Look at your Representatives.   All I'm asking for is that Cheshire be given a House District totally within Cheshire. Whatever this new Representative's political affiliation will be, the citizens of Cheshire could at last say, we have our own Representative from Cheshire in Hartford.   I would like to thank the Reapportionment Committee for devoting their time and effort to this difficult assignment. I hope that you will consider my recommendation favorably. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Representative Currey.   REP. CURREY: Hi, Al. Welcome.   AL ADINOLFI: Thank you.   REP. CURREY: Isn't it true that the 90th District I think is 60% of it is within Cheshire's borders?   AL ADINOLFI: That's what I'm saying, that Cheshire is a bipartisan district, they're very, very bipartisan. And it doesn't guarantee, the way that's set up doesn't guarantee that Cheshire would have true representation from someone within Cheshire and that's what we're looking for.   REP. CURREY: But 60% of that district is in Cheshire.   AL ADINOLFI: No, Cheshire is split up into three districts, so that district is less than 50% of Cheshire.   REP. CURREY: But of that particular district, 60% of it is Cheshire is my point.   AL ADINOLFI: The 90th?   REP. CURREY: Yes.   AL ADINOLFI: I don't think so.   REP. CURREY: I think it is.   AL ADINOLFI: That's if they include the prison population.   REP. CURREY: I believe when we do reapportionment that's how we have to do it, by census.   AL ADINOLFI: Well, they can't vote.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Representative Currey. Any further? Thank you, Sir. Next is Mr. Norman Primus to be followed by Daphne Kilbourne-Jacobs.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Good afternoon.   SEN. DELUCA: Good afternoon, Sir.   NORMAN PRIMUS: My name is Norman S. Primus, that's P-r-i-m-u-s. I reside in New London, Connecticut. I have consulted on redistricting in several states as well as for state local school boards and municipalities. I have also been called as an expert witness on redistricting in the United States Federal District Court.   Why do we need to spend millions of dollars to create districting plans that are guaranteed to be unfair to many of our states' voters? What if we could just pick Connecticut for a few thousand dollars, meet all of the Supreme Court's guidelines, protect everyone's rights and completely be transparent and fair? Well, we can.   There is a simple, tested, neutral open process that we can use. It has worked elsewhere before and it can work here in Connecticut this year. All of the necessary dated instructions are available in this kit that I am holding. Using this neutral process will save our legislators hundreds of hours that can be put to better use.   On April 5th of this year, I appeared before the Independent Reapportionment Commission of the State of Arizona in Phoenix. Along with eight other consultants, I had been invited to present my ideas for conducting the redistricting of the state. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission selected four firms for further consideration. I was not one of the four.   Several weeks later, they sent out a form letter advising everyone that they had selected three firms to serve as their consultants and to provide the data needed for the redistricting. I wrote and requested copies of their proposals submitted by the three firms and the contracts they had signed.   The three firms contracted for $1.9 million. My proposal was for $85,000. I can further inform you that two of the individuals who were at the meeting in Phoenix told me that they had been in Hartford the week before and at least one of them has a contract with our state.   I would further advise you that the Arizona contracts call for the creation of districting kits to involve the public. By the way, the General Assembly of Arizona has appropriated $6 million for the purpose of districting the state.   All the information that I present here has appeared in the media or is readily available in Arizona. Similar information is not easily available in Connecticut. What is available here in Connecticut is this districting kit that I have recommended. If used by this Committee, the whole districting process would cost the State of Connecticut a few thousand dollars as opposed to the millions of dollars that Arizona taxpayers are going to pay.   This balanced, neutral process districting kit will produce the fairest plan, will protect the rights of all citizens and will cost much less than any other district that's possible. Why not try it? Thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Any questions or comments? Thank you very much, Mr. Primus.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Next is Daphne Kilbourne-Jacob to be followed by Frank Grandune. Again, I apologize to anybody whose names I do not pronounce properly. Some of the writing here is very difficult to determine. Sorry, Daphne, go ahead.   DAPHNE KILBOURNE-JACOB: I'd like to thank members of the Committee for allowing me to speak today and in sitting here several issues that have come up have struck home particularly. One is the testimony of Lisa Scails of the NAACP. I think that her testimony regarding ethnic voting patterns and needs is particularly relevant to the big cities of Connecticut and of Hartford. They are one of the things that differentiate the cities from the smaller suburb towns.   Second, I'd like to say that the census I have two firsthand experiences with the censuses that show how inaccurate it is. A member of my extended family with a special needs son did not fill out the census. He lives in Hartford. He lives in Representative Feltman's district and his family and his special needs son went uncounted. My mother worked for the census. She was forced to go into areas that were dangerous. She's an elderly woman. She had to go back repeatedly and she was unable to get an accurate count. Okay? So I don't believe that census reflects the number of people. I think it undercounts the number of people in the state and in Hartford and it's a shame that we've lost representation in Washington.   I'm a resident of Hartford. I'm part of, I live in the south end that has been carved into the Wethersfield District. My State Representative is a person whose name I do not know. He has not sent me mailings. He has not contacted me. I am a priority voter. I've worked in politics since I was several years before I was old enough to vote and yet when I need something on a statewide or citywide level, I have to contact Art Feltman who has no reason to have to respond to me but he does.   I understand also that a slice of the southwestern part of, or the western part of Hartford is represented by somebody from, who's not a resident of Hartford. This is two areas of Hartford encompassing I don't know how many residents that do not reside in Hartford. These bedroom communities are made of people who have different social and economic needs. They don't reflect the problems of Hartford and they're not particularly responsive to Hartford.   I would ask the City, I mean, I would ask the Council to treat Hartford as a district requiring resident State Representatives and thank you for listening to my testimony today.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you for coming. Thank you for being here. Any comments or questions? Thanks again.   DAPHNE KILBOURNE-JACOB: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Next is Mr. Frank Grandune. I hope I pronounced your name properly, Sir.   FRANK GRANDONE: Almost. My name is Frank Grandone. I'm a resident of Tolland, Connecticut and my recommendation to the Committee is to consider the Second Congressional District as a unique and complete community of interest district that should be preserved essentially as is.   This is a small town area with rural pockets and by splitting that district and including metropolitan area with it, it will destroy the community of interest in the Second District and it will create a competition that is most unwelcome to the remaining districts.   That concludes my testimony. Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. With everybody's permission, there is a lady who has to leave to go to New York and has asked if she could be moved up and with your permission I will do that. Lucia Gomez. Sorry, Lucia.   LUCIA GOMEZ: Well, at least you remembered.   SEN. DELUCA: Oh, I had a note. It wasn't written to me but it was given to me.   LUCIA GOMEZ: Oh, okay. No, I mean the pronunciation of the name. Good afternoon. My name is Lucia Gomez and I am a citizen, and thank you very much for allowing me to go. I'm sorry, I'm just on one of those time schedules today.   My name is Lucia Gomez. I am the (inaudible) Participation Program Coordinator with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York City where I run the Latino Voting Rights Project of the East Coast and the Caribbean and you must be asking yourself why I continue to come to Connecticut.   And I guess it has a little something to do with the president and general counsel of PRLDEF, having been a ex-state legislator, Juan Figueroa in the area of Hartford and so I guess with his great permission I continue to come to Connecticut and we continue to be pursuing monitoring the redistricting process of the entire northeast and Florida.   I had the privilege of being before you at your first hearing in New Haven approximately three weeks ago on June 28th where I made the following recommendations and urged your immediate consideration. I want to reflect a bit and see where we are today.   For one, the redistricting process be open and transparent for all in the community to participate. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the democratic principle is in fact being implemented in such a way that the people that are actually being represented by those on the body as well as the entire legislative body have the opportunity to participate in this redistricting process completely.   For one, I suggested that the public be made available, the software, the data, and the various additional data bases created with public funds for all in the State of Connecticut to use.   Well, because PRLDEF highly values and PRLDEF is the acronym for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund highly values the role of the community in the decision making process as a fundamental right as citizens of this democracy we live in, the Latino Voting Rights Project has made available census data, (inaudible) line files and mapping software in order to make the community real players in this process.   Number two, the Committee should publish the criteria and guidelines for all in the community to follow. At the last redistricting, the hearing I attended in New Haven, I read the front and back fact sheet that was in fact given out to everybody and which was a great attempt to address some of the lack of information regarding redistricting that the community may have. Yet such a fact sheet begs two main questions.   One, what will be the number of the seats in each Chamber of the Legislature. This would clarify to the public the ideal population size for which to draw districts that I am not aware that they are quite clear as to how many of those districts would in fact be in each Chamber.   And secondly, what is the deadline for plan submissions made by the Committee for your careful and timely consideration?   Number three, another round of public hearings should be held once the proposed maps have been made public and published in local, statewide and ethnic newspapers throughout the state. Tonight's hearing at 7:00 p.m. is the last of this first round and I strongly urge the Committee once again to plan ahead and anticipate the release of a published map and the need to hold public hearings for the public to consider before a vote goes to either legislative body.   With three Congressional Districts ranging from 10% to 15% total Latino population in Connecticut, eight Senate Districts ranging from 15% to 48% and eight Assembly Districts ranging from 41% to 65% total Latino population. Our communities desire to participate and be made aware of the changes in their communities and in their state and is of utmost concern and should not be taken for granted.   And lastly, my most favorite one is the Committee's lack of racial or ethnic diversity continues to be of an utmost concern. More so now that the issue has been raised since the start of these public hearings three weeks ago and before that, some time in early May, made public by the Latino Voting Rights Committee of Connecticut and the NAACP to name but a few in sufficient time for the Committee to address this concern head on and make the needed additions or changes to its current composition.   Let me remind the Committee that it is the Connecticut Legislative body that passed Public Law 93-24 codified as Section 49b of the Connecticut General Statutes that all appointing authorities, and I quote, make a good faith effort to insure that to the extent possible, the membership accept the ex-officio membership of each state board commission, committee and council having members appointed by the Governor or appointed by members of the General Assembly is qualified and more closely reflects the gender and racial diversity of the state. Closed quote.   Understanding that this Legislative Committee may in fact not fall under its own guidance for other commissions, it is extremely disheartening that a state that has made the issue of gender and racial diversity on state appointed bodies an utmost concern by its lawmakers, not only disregard this Committee's composition as problematic but continue to ignore the public's request for a more representative body of the people of Connecticut.   And lastly, this is not to take business away from Mr. Norma Primus of the redistricting which I find extremely helpful, but it is up to the elected bodies, especially this Committee, to give to the people the criteria, rules, suggestions, instructions, guidelines, maps and data for the preparation of all three legislative bodies in Connecticut as well as the process and time frames for submission to the Committee for their acceptance and adoption, immediately, for full compliance with the democratic principles that should govern this redistricting process. Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Questions or comments? Thank you. Next is Rosemary Coyle to be followed by Oz Griebel.   ROSEMARY COYLE: Good afternoon, Senator DeLuca and members of the Reapportionment Committee. I'm Rosemary Coyle, president of the Connecticut Education Association.    CEA wants to go on record in opposition to drawing the new Congressional boundaries in such a manner as to match Representative James Maloney and Representative Nancy Johnson against one another. CEA has endorsed Representative Johnson in each of the last two elections and has endorsed Representative Maloney in each of the last three elections. We consider both of them to be friends of public education.   In both the 106th and 107th Congresses, Representative Johnson along with Representative Charles Wrangle has introduced the America's Best Classrooms Act. If passed the bill would provide tax credits to pay the interest on $25 billion in school modernization bonds. Sixty percent of the money would go to states based on their school aged populations and 40% would be targeted at the 125 Districts with the largest percentage of low income students.   America's Better Classrooms Act would save school districts $500 in interest payments for every $1,000 in bonds and represents the only serious federal initiative in this extremely critical area. Representative Maloney is a strong supporter of this legislation as well.   Our national organization, the National Education Association places school modernization as its first priority and is working closely with Representative Johnson in seeking passage of America's Better Classrooms Act.   Both Representative Johnson and Representative Maloney have 100% voting records on our education issues in the first session of the 107th Congress. Among the rest of Connecticut's delegation, only Representative DeLauro can also boast of a 100% voting record for education in the 107th Congress.   Each of them has registered opposition to a series of amendments to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These amendments include a proposal to permit 100 districts to block grant federal funds in professional development, technology, save schools and innovative programs. A national voucher program that would permit low income students to use public funds to attend private or religious schools, a $50 million voucher program involving five demonstration projects, an amendment to cut authorized education funding by $2.3 billion and impose a 3.5% ceiling on each subsequent year's increase.   In both the 105th and 106th Congress, Representatives Maloney and Johnson have supported increased funding for education, opposed vouchers, supported increased federal funding for educational technology and advocated more support for special education.   CEA asks the members of this Committee to consider the commitment both of these members of Congress have for public education as well as our other Congressional friends of public education as a   Cass. 2 (GAP FROM CASS. 1 TO CASS. 2)   to insure that at least one friend of public education will not return after the 2002 elections. Thank you for consideration of CEA's perspective and the opportunity to address you today. And I know this is an overwhelming task and we respect that.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you very much. Questions or comments? Thank you for coming.   ROSEMARY COYLE: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Oz Griebel to be followed by and I apologize, Felicity, it looks like Markham but I can't read it. Is Oz here? I saw him earlier. I guess he must have stepped out. So it will be Felicity, I believe it's Markham, is it? From Hartford? Timothy Fitzgerald. James Lane. Mr. Lane.   JAMES LANE: Good afternoon. I'm James Lane, vice-president of Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce and I'd like to actually grant my time to Larry McHugh, president of the Chamber if it pleases the Committee.   SEN. DELUCA: I don't know, we'll have to think about that, Larry. Nice to have you here, Larry.   LARRY MCHUGH: Thank you very much for allowing me to do this. I didn't think I'd make it up here today but I couldn't make it in Norwich but I wanted to make sure I was here today.   I also appreciate the hard task that you have in this redistricting situation for the State of Connecticut. It's very important for all of us.   I represent the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce that has over 2,100 members that employ over 49,000 people and we strongly urge the Reapportionment Committee to preserve the Second Congressional District.   The Second Congressional District currently is comprised, as you've heard before, of small cities and towns. The challenges of these small cities and towns in addressing such needs as job creation, economic development, education, health care, transportation and social service delivery are often very different from the state's large urban centers. It's very important that our district remains together.   This district has been in its basic alignment for over 100 years. The reason for this is that we're able to work together to continue to move our district forward and our state forward.   Again, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak here today and hopefully we can keep the Second as close together as it is today. Thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Larry. Questions? Comments? As I mentioned earlier, although you didn't make it the other night to Norwich, you were well represented by a number of people.   LARRY MCHUGH: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Next is Clayton Dubay to be followed by Bonnie Burr. Is Clayton here? If not, Bonnie, you're up. To be followed by Justino Rosado.   BONNIE BURR: Senator DeLuca and members of the Reapportionment Committee, my name is Bonnie Burr and I'm here today representing Connecticut Farm Bureau. We're a membership organization that has approximately 5,200 members statewide. We're Republicans, we're Democrats, we're Independents. And let me state or the record that when the lines are drawn and we have winners and we have losers, Connecticut agriculture is going to lose a friend no matter who ends up not going back to Washington.   About ten years ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, through their Federal Farm Policy, took a look at Connecticut and felt that given the agricultural populations, they could eliminate some of their USDA offices. When they took a look at our agriculture and our farms lie, they said, well, Fairfield County could probably, especially upper Fairfield County would be a natural fit to go in with Litchfield County, especially given some of the land base and how some of the agricultural farmers operate dairy farms and things like that were very similar to Litchfield County.   They also took a look at the upper Connecticut River Valley and they took a look at Tolland County and said, okay, we have similar farms, similar types of agricultural operations there. And then finally they took a look at Windham and New London County and they said, again, we have similar types of agricultural operation, similar types of producers, and that's how they drew the lines in terms of what and how they would carry out federal farm programs.   We would ask that as you make the decisions that you're going to carry out, and again, they're ones that few people will want to be in your shoes when the final lines are drawn, that you would consider what the agricultural population needs are, how we're currently effectively, very effectively working, and would carry out the lines in a similar fashion.    Do you have any suggestions or comments? We'd be happy to entertain them.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Bonnie. Any questions, comments? Thank you for coming. Justino Rosado to be followed by Thurman Milner.   JUSTINO ROSADO: Good afternoon Senators and Representatives. My name is Justino Rosado. I am a member of the Connecticut Latino Redistricting Committee. I live in Bridgeport and my office is located in New haven. I had the fortunate task of ten years ago being a member of that same committee and being involved in redistricting.   We were able then to, united with the Reapportionment Committee of both Senators and Representatives, to draw maps which were acceptable by the House and which were acceptable by the community. If I remember correctly ten years ago there was only one challenge to the maps that were drawn and that challenge by the courts was not accepted.   It was a challenge in which they felt that redistricting was not properly done but this committee was able to prove in their effort that they had looked at all positions and all maps and all the communities and were able to draw maps which were representative of the communities.   And one of the issues that made that possible was that ten years ago, even though this Committee was, as ten years ago, not composed of any minority members, this Committee allowed the minority community and the Latino community to caucus with them and give them input into what our community felt was proper and what our community felt were maps which would represent us.   We ask you this time, as we did ten years ago, to look upon that caucus method and allow us to be able to provide input to your Committee about our community and about the maps which you are drawing. This is something that's very important to the Latino community and to the African-American community and all of Connecticut. We need to be able to put input into what is happening because it is something that is going to affect us all for the next ten years.   Ten years from now we will be coming back together. We will be asking ourselves what we did ten years ago and how we can improve it. One of the ways I would recommend to you to improve it is to allow in the next ten years for the minority community to have representatives sitting with you and be an active part.   As members of the caucus, we do not have a right to vote. We can only express opinions and hope that you accept it. This time again, we ask you to allow us to form that caucus with you and to be able to give input to you as to how our community wishes or would like to have maps drawn so that they may be able to be properly represented.   Also, members of this Committee, distinguished members of this Committee, we would ask you also for direction. As members of the Senate and the House, one of the things which is in your hands and you're capable of doing it, either increasing it or decreasing the membership of the House of Representatives or increasing or decreasing the members of the Senate.    As you've heard from many towns and many communities that one of the biggest concerns is the division which these towns are going to suffer from the redistricting process. Many of these towns are asking as Cheshire did and as Bolton was talking before, being able to maintain the town in unity rather than having it divided. That is in your hands.   One of the ways that you can obtain that method and bring satisfaction to many communities is by increasing the number of Representatives in the House. Increase the number of Representatives in the Senate. Maybe there's not enough seats to go around right now because of the round table in the Senate, but that can be easily modified and corrected. Maybe there's not enough seats in the House of Representatives but I'm sure that our community wouldn't mind having to sit along the walls as long as we're properly represented, as long as we have a voice which could be heard by everyone. This is something that is in your hands.   As I was looking at the population and the maps for Fairfield County, the Fourth District, and for the Fourth Congressional District and the Fifth Congressional District, the input of the amount of people that now reside within those areas is causing havoc and I don't know what miracle you guys are going to work or if you all have the rod of Abraham in order, Moses, in order to be able to divide the waters but you're going to need something like that to be able to draw new lines.   Most Representatives that I see within that area almost live next door to each other, could throw rocks at each other. Trying to unite them and divide them is going to cause many problems within the redistricting process. And one of the issues of redistricting is to maintain the incumbents within their own district. I don't envy you that job. I don't envy it at all. I don't know how you're going to do it. Like I said, many of you here are going to be miracle workers. You could write a book once you finish this process.   But one of the methods which I'm proposing to you today is, increase the number of Representative. That is within your realm. That is within your ability to do. That's a method which would maybe not make everybody happy and maybe might cause the Governor to spend a little bit more money in increasing the number of seats in the House and in the Senate, but it's a process where representation will then be more equal and more accurate because then the people that will be voting from each town will be able to say, that is my Representative and recognize which one. They won't have to go to some other Representative because they're a friend of theirs to assist them in the process. They can go to the person who actually comes here and votes for them. Those are two methods, two things which I'm asking of you today.    A third thing which I'm asking you is, allow us to see these maps before you vote on them. We would like to be able to look at them. We would like to be able to comment on them. We would like to tell you, hey, you've done a great job. Wait a minute, this isn't right. This is something that is important to us and is important to you.   If you just forward on the maps and then just say this is what you're going to accept and receive, that's not the democratic way. We didn't vote you in here to act in that type of manner. We're asking you to understand our needs, understand and listen to our voice and allow us to be able to say to you, gee, you guys really worked hard. And I understand the process that you went through and I know this is the best that you can do and thank you.    At the same time, if need be we can say, look, can you just move this line one centimeter over so I can live across the River and have such a person representing me or representing my community. I would like to be able to say that to you before you vote, not after you vote. After you vote, my only recourse is the courts and nobody wants that.   I think that, as ten years ago when we had this process again, as far as I was concerned, it was very inclusive. We sat with you members of the Reapportionment Committee. We spoke with you directly. You listened to us. You heard us. You gave us suggestions and we gave you suggestions and together we created maps for this state which have stood for ten years.   Let us create maps again this time that will stand for ten years, whether they're challenged or not but they will stand because we have created them together. Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Before you leave, I would just like to comment. Having been on the Committee ten years ago and you did refer to members of your group did caucus with caucuses of the Redistricting Committee at that time and I would agree with you.   Although no formal request has been made of this date to my knowledge, I know not of my caucus, but I have indicated to members of your group that we would be willing to do the same as we did ten years ago. So as to your suggestions, until we receive a request we can't do it, but when we do, I'm sure we all will and we're willing to work to make sure that it works to everybody's benefit. Because as you mentioned, we're supposed to represent and make this representative of all the citizens of the state.   JUSTINO ROSADO: Please accept my speaking today as a formal request on the record.   SEN. DELUCA: Well, I have to have something in writing, Sir.   JUSTINO ROSADO: We will follow it up by a letter.   SEN. DELUCA: I have to have something in writing, Sir. The Committee would be willing to meet but we're not going to call you, I'll tell you that.   JUSTINO ROSADO: I understand you, Senator DeLuca. I know the process and I appreciate your comments.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Next is Thurman Milner, to be followed by, and I can't read the name, not because I can't pronounce it, because I can't read it but it looks like an S-o-n-y or an S-o-h-y. If that person is here. Excuse me, Thurman, I didn't mean to interrupt.   THURMAN MILNER: Good afternoon. My name is Thurman Milner. I'm a former State and local elected official presently serving as the State Political Action Chairman of the NAACP and president of Greater Hartford Branch of NAACP.   Just for a correction on the last speaker, a request has been formally made to the leadership for inclusion and dialogue with the Commission. It was made through the leadership through Representative Lyons and the Senator.   SEN. DELUCA: As Co-Chairman of this Committee, I have not received it.   THURMAN MILNER: Well, I'm just saying it has been made.   I come this afternoon with great concerns and great hopes that these concerns will be addressed by this Commission and/or in the future. We all talk about diversity. Legislative leadership seeks to enforce diversity but in the makeup of this Commission did not practice it.   Redistricting and reapportionment will have a major impact on all the residents of the state for the next ten years and longer. Yet, we start off with exclusion, not inclusion when it comes to people of color. That is not a good start and does not speak well of this state's leadership.   Redistricting is supposedly done to insure equal representation but we begin with a flawed process of unequal representation. The question is, where do we go from here? We are told that the so-called minority community will have plenty of opportunity for input, including this and other hearings. I hope this is true. But the history of legislative hearings do not support that.   I have sat at numerous hearings, both as speaker and hearer and in most cases, hearings have been held to appease the natives and not for real input. I hope these hearings will be different, that we who speak will be heard and not just listened to.   The National NAACP has made fair redistricting one of the top priorities and here at state and local level we have been working with other communities of interest, African-Americans and Latinos, to assist you in bringing fairness and equity to the redistricting process.   The recent fiasco in Florida and the federal administration's decision to accept the census count as given, has sent the wrong message that every vote does not count. I urge you not to take that message to the voters of Connecticut, to a so-called minority community.   We have already been told that some take our votes for granted, and they do. But the message from this Commission must be one of progress in the area of equal representation and not regress.   I realize that race no longer is considered a factor in redistricting but communities of interest are. Because of the concentration of blacks and Latinos in this state's urban centers and because of unique problems that are, or at least should be addressed through the state legislative process, people call it in the state, particularly in our urban centers for the most part, are a community of interest.   We have moved from the point in my life when we had no state legislators, elected officials of color, to this day when we have 18. I realize according to the hard count of Census 2000, that the number of residents in cities like Hartford has declined. But in these cities, the number of people of color has actually increased.   All I ask this Commission is that this be taken into serious consideration, as well as the work done by our coalition, as you redraw district lines across this state. For me and for us people of color, a community of interest, the struggle for equality and justice has been long fought and has been very rough. The victories gained have been through the loss of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by far too many and I pray that this Commission will not turn back the clock but continue the progress of democracy in this state by insuring more, not less representation of people of color who definitely fit the description of community of interest, by not decreasing the number of black and Latino state legislators and by not diluting our voting power by pushing us further and further out in the suburbs. Thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Senator Cappiello.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you, Mr. Milner. Just a few brief comments. One, just so you know there are eight members of the Committee. If you would like to sit down with myself and the other members, I would just make sure that each of the members receives your request because there are four caucuses as well. So maybe one or two of the caucuses may have received the letter, but I don't think I've received your letter so it would be appreciated.   THURMAN MILNER: It wasn't a letter. It was through a personal meeting but we will put it in writing if that's necessary.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: It has to also be in writing, yes. And another issue. This issue has come up at all five public hearings and, although it be very unfortunate, you had mentioned that there are no members of color on the Committee and that's true. Although unfortunate in our caucus there are supposed to be two members for each of the four caucuses. And our caucus, we unfortunately have no minority members so it's impossible for us to appoint anyone who is a minority.   It has been brought up time after time and I just want you to know. I don't think there's any intention to exclude any minorities from any of the four caucuses but in some cases it's also impossible for us to do so.   THURMAN MILNER: And to me, nothing is impossible. I would really want to do that effort.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Except in this case it is because the Constitution says, there are to members in each of the four caucuses. We can't reach outside our caucus to put someone on the Committee. It would be unconstitutional. So therefore, in this case it is impossible for our caucus.   THURMAN MILNER: Maybe we could look at changing the caucus or the Constitution.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: If you can help us get some members selected for us, we would love to have your help.   THURMAN MILNER: We'll help you if you don't redistrict them out. They're already there.   SEN. DELUCA: Just to pursue the request for meetings, you said they have been in writing to the leadership and I don't recall getting one. Could you confirm that one was sent to me?   THURMAN MILNER: It was sent, I think, to Representative Lyons, correct? And Senator Sullivan.   REP. LYONS: That is correct. We did meet, you know. I did have a meeting with Representatives. I did have a meeting with you also. Yes, Sir, we did have a meeting.   THURMAN MILNER: No, I'm saying the letter, the letters were sent --   SEN. DELUCA: Well, as Co-Chairman of the Committee, Senator Sullivan is a member as is everyone else and when you talk about leadership, you talk about leadership of this Committee and then exclude me, maybe because I'm a minority member and it's very difficult to me and sit here and be told I didn't respond when you didn't even include me or even think of me.   THURMAN MILNER: Sir, I didn't say Senator DeLuca didn't respond. The feeling was that if we sent it to both the Senate leadership and the House leadership that they would share it with the entire Commission. That is what normally happens. That's what I thought would happen in this case. We didn't try to exclude you.   SEN. DELUCA: In this case the Senate did not. So in the future, if you send it to the Co-Chairman you will get a response.   THURMAN MILNER: Right. But I think Senator Sullivan should have shared that with you.   SEN. DELUCA: It's not my responsibility.   THURMAN MILNER: It's his.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you.   THURMAN MILNER: Yes, thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: And as aforementioned, I don't, excuse me, Thurman, I don't know who this person is, if they are here. It looks like S-o-n-y or S-o-h-y. And the last name, it could be a right, it could be a middle initial B. If nobody is owning up to this penmanship, we'll go on to the next who is Marina Rodriguez. To be followed by Tom Phillips.   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon. I'm Marina Rodriguez from the City of Hartford Planning Division. I am here today to point out a census error in the population count for the City of Hartford that has implications for the State Redistricting. The error would impact the Second Senatorial District and the First Assembly District.   A mistake is found in census tract 5038 block 2000 where the 2000 census released a population and housing count of zero. In fact, on census day, there were 2,544 persons residing in that block At the University of Hartford's student dormitories in the City of Hartford. The entire University of Hartford student resident population was wrongly allocated to the Town of West Hartford in tract 4973 block 1009.   We speculate that this miscalculation occurred because the entrance to the University of 250 Bloomfield Avenue is located in block 1009 in West Hartford. The City of Hartford did everything it could to prevent this miscount from occurring by following all census procedures for an accurate count.   In addition, Hartford warned the Census Bureau for the potential of this error prior to the release of the data. Even so, the census made the mistake. After the census date was officially released several months ago, Hartford informed the Census Bureau of this error in the data sets and requested a letter from them confirming the letter, asked to have the mistake correction in addition to requesting the letter.   The Census Bureau did acknowledge their mistake but has not confirmed this in writing. Instead, the census referred us to their count question resolution or CQR program. This program is their official process intended to correct such errors. Hartford is participating in the CQR process but there is a time conflict. This process just began this month and is scheduled to take two years. We do not expect the Census Bureau to complete or correct Hartford's population count before the September 15, 2001 deadline for state redistricting.   Hartford has been working with your Committee staff. We have shared mapping and population data to incorporate into the redistricting process and provided the documentation necessary to accurately adjust the population count. We will continue to keep you informed about this problem.   I would like to submit for the record, the letter dated July 10, 2001 from Hartford to the Census Bureau which includes more details. I would also like to submit the following attachments: a letter from the University of Hartford verifying that 2,544 students reside in Hartford, a set of aerial photos that show the municipal boundaries and the location of the University dormitories, tables comparing the 1990 and 2000 census population counts for the specified tracts and blocks and a map showing the location of tract 5038 block 2000.   Please contact us at the City of Hartford if there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Thank you for your consideration.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Ma'am. Representative O'Neill.   REP. O'NEILL: Just a, I understand that this happened ten years ago as well. Is that correct?   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: Yes.   REP. O'NEILL: Do you know how long it took, or what the process was ten years ago for this review by the Census Bureau? Did it take two years then, too?   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: What occurred in 1990 is that the census local review was different than it was in 2000. In 1990, the census released preliminary counts to municipalities prior to the official numbers being released by the Census Bureau, so we were able to detect the error and correct it before the official data sets were released by the census.   In Census 2000 we were not given that opportunity. The Census Bureau changed their procedures and we were involved in all the local reviews but there was no final review of the preliminary numbers before their public release. So that's why the error occurred this time around and it was not caught before the numbers were officially released. Last time they were caught before it was officially released.   REP. O'NEILL: Okay, so the last time the official numbers that the Committee received were corrected and did not have an error in them for this West Hartford, University of Hartford problem.   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: No.   REP. O'NEILL: But this time we've got official numbers from the Census Bureau that do contain that error and that's not, apparently not going to be resolved you think, for quite some time, at least until after September 15?   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: Correct.   REP. O'NEILL: You said two years. Do they give you any indication whether anything is likely to happen any sooner than that?   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: No.   REP. O'NEILL: So they're going to do --   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: We have asked them in writing to correct it as soon as possible but the only thing we have received back in writing is that this review process after the data released would take up to two years, so the process is going to be completed of September, 2003. And your deadline is September, 2001. So that's a situation that, and we have discussed this with your Committee staff. There is a legal issue here that needs to be resolved. I don't know if the counts can be adjusted for accuracy without the Census re-releasing those numbers officially and I don't know when they're going to re-release them because their review process has just started to make these corrections.   REP. O'NEILL: That's a really good question. Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. I think your point of getting a legal interpretation, I think we will have to pursue that with our staff to see if we can resolve that and as you said, it would be a legal decision whether we can incorporate those figures or not, so we would have to get that legal ruling. So we will try to pursue it and see if we can figure that out.   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: I just want to reiterate, the Census has acknowledged that it was their error.   SEN. DELUCA: Right. I understand that.   MARINA RODRIGUEZ: So there's no question of what needs to be done. It's just an issue, when is it officially going to be corrected by the Census.   SEN. DELUCA: Right. Can we use those numbers now or not is a legal issue and that's something we'll have to pursue and find out. Thank you for bringing it to the Committee's attention. Next is Tom Phillips to be followed by Bob Santy.   THOMAS PHILLIPS: Good afternoon. My name is Thomas Phillips. I'm executive director and CEO of the Capitol Region Workforce Development Board. I'm here today to provide some brief comments regarding the development of the Redistricting Plan that will reduce Connecticut's present six Congressional districts to five.   The Capitol Region Workforce Development Board is responsible for workforce development policy and planning and management of almost $20 million in public funds covering a 30 town area, including Hartford. Governance is provided by a 50 member joint policy board made up of elected officials, private businesses, learning institutions and community based organizations.   On behalf of our board's executive committee, I am offering several thoughts for consideration into the final decision making process that will eventually determine the new First Congressional District boundary.   The First District should remain in tact as it currently is, with other municipalities added as part of a redistricting effort. At a minimum the Towns of Enfield and Windsor Locks, which are already members of the Workforce Board should be added. These towns historically have a strong interest and commitment to the Capitol Region as a whole.   In addition, Bradley Airport is an important economic development engine for the Capitol Region and the Workforce Board has and will continue to provide the necessary workforce development resources to insure separate and joint development efforts are successful for the Airport, Hartford and the rest of the Capitol Region.   Many positive collaborate efforts have and need to continue if the Capitol Region is to become more competitive in a global economy. We have been very successful in securing competitive federal grants as a region but we must become stronger to compensate for the loss of a Congressional seat and because of a decrease in available federal dollars.   Again, thank you for the opportunity to present the Workforce Board position on the Congressional redistricting plan.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Tom. Questions or comments? Thank you. Mr. Bob Santy to be followed by Jim Smith.   BOB SANTY: Good afternoon. I'm happy to be here. Thank you for your patience. I know this is the fifth hearing. I can't imagine five of these but I know there are other things you could be doing with your summers and appreciate what you're all doing here.   I'm president of the Regional Growth Partnership. The Regional Growth Partnership is an economic development agency, public/private partnership for New Haven and the surrounding 14 communities and I want to talk about the Third Congressional District for just a minute.   Clearly, the one certainty in this process is that the Congressional Districts are going to change and we understand that. And while people are talking about trying to keep things together, we know that for example in our district we're going to have to gain about 100,000 population one way or another. So the only constancy is change, I guess, in this process.   What I'd like to talk about as an economic development professional is some of the economic realities that you face because I think economically there are common interests that members of different communities have and we certainly have in the New Haven Metro area.   One measure of this and it's interesting that I'm following Tom today is labor market areas because labor market areas define to a great degree, commuting patterns. And I think one thing you want to look at is where people live and where do they work and try and keep in tact those regions that have a common commuting area.   That is the reality in the current Third Congressional District where the commuting area around New Haven really makes up the bulk of the district and we hope you continue this principle as you look at the redistricting for this area. If you look, for example, at our Regional Planning Agency or our Council of Governments, it includes towns like Meriden and Bethany which currently are not members, part of the Third Congressional District and it would seem to us if you were to try and keep the economic reality of the District together, adding Bethany and Meriden as an example would help do that.   We also have a close working relationship with the Valley towns and previous testimony notwithstanding, we think that there is a good economic connection with the Valley towns. And I'd also point out that recently I've had an inquiry from Cheshire about joining our organization, the RGP because they see some commonality of interest between Cheshire and the activities of the New Haven region.   So with all that in mind, we think that trying to keep those group of towns together and adding a few around New Haven makes the most sense.   Another argument I'd like to make which was certainly raised by Steve Cassano in his testimony earlier about the Hartford region is that we are working as a region on a number of projects. We have brownfield projects for example that we work together on, where we receive funding from the EPA. We're very interested in creating an Economic Development District, which is a term of art for the Federal Economic Development Administration and that district has to have some common economic characteristics to it and we really are working as a region in the Council of Government towns, the 15 towns that currently make up the Council of Governments.   We're also working with the Army Corps of Engineers for the New Haven Harbor for example, and all of this we're doing with the current incumbent in the current Congressional District and it makes sense to have whoever that person is, represent that economic entity, the Greater New Haven area.   The closer the lines of the Congressional District are to our current planning areas and Council of Governments, the more synergies there are, the more comparability there are in our interests and we think very strongly that despite our bad record in receiving federal funds, as we're ranked 50th, I understand in states that receive a percentage of federal funds back, that we would do much better if we created Congressional Districts around the economic realities of the state.   So at a time when we're losing a seat, it's important to make sure we don't lose our clout and slip even further behind other states in the percentage of our federal dollars that we get back.   So I urge you to maintain the principle of building the Third Congressional District and others around the economic realities of a metro area, in our case the New Haven metropolitan area for all these reasons. I'd be happy to answer any questions.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Mr. Santy. Senator Cappiello.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you for your testimony. I just want to be clear. You were advocating then that the Naugatuck Valley come down to the current Third District. Did you also say Meriden? Did I hear that correctly?   BOB SANTY: Meriden is currently a member of the Council of Governments for South Central Connecticut, so they are a member community of our organization as an example. So yeah, it would make sense in my mind, the Mayor's testimony notwithstanding, from an economic standpoint we already have connections with Meriden.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: If that would happen, what would be your suggestion? You would have to lose something, obviously as well, because it would be too large of a district. Would you have any suggestions as to what towns you would want to shed?   BOB SANTY: Well, I didn't understand we would have to lose something because --   SEN. CAPPIELLO: If you were to pick up all of that, Naugatuck Valley through Waterbury to Meriden, I would think that you would have to lose something. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but --   BOB SANTY: Let me put it in the terms of those are ideas are on what to add in order to get us to the number, rather than take something away.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Representative Ward.   REP. WARD: Did you describe the Naugatuck Valley and do you kind of mean, as I grew up in Derby I used to think the Valley as Ansonia, Derby, Shelton and Seymour. As I've been in the Legislature I know it also means Naugatuck and Waterbury and Oxford. We never thought of Oxford when we lived in Derby. Sort of rich guys.   But in any event, when you're using the term is it the Lower Naugatuck Valley, the Ansonia, Derby, Shelton, Seymour, or do you think there also could be commonality as you kind of go up the Naugatuck River to Oxford, Naugatuck and to Waterbury?   BOB SANTY: We currently do a lot of work with the Valley RPA and that's really the Lower Valley although I think there's some overlap between the Waterbury RPA and the Lower Valley. So it's really the four towns we work with the most.   REP. WARD: And although Cheshire is currently in the Fifth Congressional District, do they overlap with you in terms of some other planning things at this point or have some commonality with New Haven in terms of commuting patterns?   BOB SANTY: Yeah. There's certainly commonality with commuting patterns. Cheshire is sort of, it belongs to almost three cities in its commuting patterns, to Hartford and to New Haven and to Waterbury.   I think there have traditionally been a lot of ties between Cheshire and New Haven. We aren't organized that way now but as I said, there is an inquiry. One of the things we do a lot in New Haven of course is trying to build our biotech businesses and one of them just moved to Cheshire. So in a sense, Cheshire for biotech reasons is starting to look at New Haven and say, gee, maybe we should organize regionally so we can take advantage of some of the things we're doing for biotech.   REP. WARD: Has Meriden been any part of the biotech?   BOB SANTY: Meriden is very interested in developing biotech. They have a piece of property, actually, an old hospital that they'd like to convert for biotech. They do have one biotech resident firm now and it's part of their economic development strategy, yes.   REP. WARD: I remember some Meriden folks lobbying me out at the New Haven Airport so it seemed like they had some interest in New Haven. The Meriden firms were telling me we ought to have a bigger airport.   BOB SANTY: It may be the firm but I happen to know that the president lives in East Haven so that's probably why you're hearing from them.   REP. WARD: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Santy. Next is Jim Smith. Is Mr. Smith here?   JIM SMITH: Good afternoon. I see that you're getting maps that are made. I'm Jim Smith. I'm the Chairman of the Democratic Town Committee in Union and I'd like to say also for the record that I know something about being a small fish in a big pond.   But due to the small town nature of the Second Congressional District I got to know Sam Gejdensen very well and in the last year I've also gotten to know Rob Simmons and this is to a large degree because there is no population center that dominates the Second Congressional District, unlike in state government at the party level, the Town of Union actually gets a vote and both Sam and Rob actually campaigned in the Town of Union last year.   Now there are two major factors that create commonality of interest in the Second District and I'm sure you've heard a lot about small town interest in the aggregation of these so I won't go over those any more, but I'd like to talk a little bit about geography.   Exclusive of the coastal zone, Connecticut is divided into three major areas. The eastern highlands, the western highlands and they are separated by the central valley. Now, within eastern Connecticut, the Town of Union is responsible for a lot of clean water. Across the street from my house, Roaring Brook joins with a couple of other streams from Stafford to form the Willimantic River. In the Town of Union, Morey Pond is the head waters for the Mount Hope River which is the primary water supply for the Town of Willimantic, the city, you might say, of Willimantic. And also in the Town of Union we have the head waters for the Quinnebaug River. All these waters come together to form the Thames in Norwich. Clean water is something that people need to pay a lot of attention to.   Another commonality that ties people together politically is the same Senate District and if you look at the map I provided you, you can see that I've approached this by Senate District and I would recommend very strongly to you that before you create new Congressional Districts you create new Senate Districts and try as much as you can, to follow the Senate Districts when you're creating the boundaries for the Congressional Districts.   Now, this has to be regarded as a rough first approximation because it's based on the old ones, but the rule I tried to follow was, one Congressional District equals seven Senate Districts of course a little bit more. And if the Second District is to be preserved as an entity, it has to grow, it has to grow to the west and it must pick up the population center. The only viable population center is Manchester. So for that reason I incorporated the Fourth Senate District into the new Second District, exchanged the Seventh into the new First District and there are other changes which you can see here.   One other geographic reality I'd like to point out to you is the simple fact that Manchester is nine miles from Hartford and New Britain is also nine miles from Hartford.   I'd also like to point out that this resubdivision of the state addresses the concern that's been expressed by people in western Connecticut who want to keep Danbury and Waterbury in the same Congressional District.   Thank you very much.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Just a couple of questions. Did you take into consideration on this, as you said this is your first pass at it, the population in each of the districts being equalized?   JIM SMITH: Yes. I tried to as much as I could.   SEN. DELUCA: But you know by the federal standards that we have to get this close to down to one person if possible so that we do not have the latitude of uneven districts as far as populations.   JIM SMITH: Right. So presumably, if you create new Senate Districts, they will be of approximately equal population as well.   SEN. DELUCA: But the only problem with that is, you do have latitude in the Senate and House Districts which you don't have under the federal guidelines so you have two different guidelines. So that in the Senate Districts, they could be somewhat on a different and uneven so that your population would be somewhat skewed.   JIM SMITH: Right. I recognize it's an inexact science.   SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, anyhow for your try. It's a nice looking map. Any other questions --   JIM SMITH: It's two western districts, it's two central districts and one eastern district.   SEN. DELUCA: No, and just without looking at population, it does look as though you tried and I wasn't making light of the fact that the population wasn't concentrated in each of the districts in trying to come up with an equalized population. But at first glance, it looks like you took that into consideration. Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much for coming.   JIM SMITH: Thank you.   SEN. DELUCA: This was the last gentleman signed up for speaking today. If there is anyone here who didn't sign up and still wishes to speak, they could come forth at this point in time. Is there anyone? If not, I will, oh, excuse me, if not, then I would consider this hearing closed and we will be back here at 7:00 p.m. Thank you.   (Whereupon the hearing was adjourned.)

 

Back