The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters released their
2009 Scorecard for lawmakers in the State Capitol on Tuesday. Overall, 58% of the State Senators and Representatives were given an A or A+ on environmental voting. Middletown's delegation was even better than the rest of the State, of our 6 elected lawmakers, only Representative Joe Serra earned less than an A.
- Paul Doyle (Senate, D, 9th District): 96% (A)
- Thomas Gaffey (Senate, D, 13th District): 100% (A+)
- James O'Rourke (House, D, 32nd District): 96% (A)
- Joseph Serra (House, D, 33rd District): 89% (B)
- Gail Hamm (House, D, 34th District): 100% (A+)
- Matt Lesser (House, D, 100th District): 100% (A+)
The CTLCV tracked 12 bills about environmental issues that were voted on in the State Senate, and 14 bills that were voted on in the State House of Representatives. The bills that passed included an updated bottle deposit bill, bills to preserve farmland and historic urban centers, legislation that bans the toxin BPA in children's products, Smart Growth legislation, and a bill making streets and roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians by directing towns to use some state-road aid funds for this purpose. On each bill, lawmakers were given 100% for a pro-environment vote, 0% for an anti-environment vote, and 50% for absence during voting.
Serra's low performance stemmed from his absence for a vote to tighten the restrictions on pesticide applications at day care facilities and schools (HB 1020), and his NO vote on a bill to protect fish and wildlife by establishing a marine sport fishing license and tripling the fine for illegal takings of shellfish (HB 5875).
Doyle lost points for being absent for a vote to restrict vehicle idling (SB 792), and O'Rourke lost points for missing a vote to establish tax credits for environmentally responsible building construction (HB1033).
---------
Commentary:
The above scores are on bills that made it to a vote in the Senate and/or the House. It is relatively trivial to learn the voting record of our elected officials on those bills which they were asked to vote on. However, there were a large number of bills which were not voted on in one or both chambers of the legislature, because the legislative leadership decided that it would not come out of committee for a full vote. There is no way for voters to know the position of our elected officials on those bills, or to know whether they played a behind-the-scenes role in keeping the bill from coming up for a vote. In each legislative session there are hundreds of such bills.
There is a fundamental lack of transparency and accountability in government when voters have no idea who or what determines when important legislation is voted on or not. When something is not voted on, the attitude all too often seems to be, "Oh, the bill died, it couldn't be brought up for a vote before the legislative session ended."
This passive voice explanation makes the legislators appear as bystanders to the legislature.
Although individual legislators cannot be blamed when a bill dies in committee, they do have a responsibility to their constituents to make it clear why a bill died. This should be more than a passive, "The caucus decided ...," or "The leadership felt ...." Legislators ought to make it clear who made the decision and why, and what he or she, as our representative, did to support or oppose "the caucus" decision. After all, we as voters can only vote for an individual State Senator and State Representative, we cannot vote on "the caucus" or "the leadership."
As a minimum, voters should be able to easily learn the position and the actions that their elected official take on every bill, whether it is voted on or not. Such increased transparency would lead to increased confidence and engagement in government on the part of citizens.
