There are the promises made by candidates during a campaign, then there are the promises made when candidates are elected and gearing up for legislative session, and then there are the promises made when legislators are in session. Promises to save Connecticut’s residents from a plethora of complicated issues are abundant and legislators on both sides of the aisle are just looking for the opportunity to point the finger at one another for breaking those promises.

The 2007 Legislative Session has made it past the half way point, and the first to mount an attack were the Republicans against the Democratic Majority. The Republicans took to the press to point out that none of the Democratic Majority’s promises have yet been fulfilled. Speaker Amann stated that healthcare, eminent domain and rising energy rates would be addressed within the first 30 days of session. That mark passed well over a month ago.

The Democrats wasted no time to hurl out a rebuttal. President of the Senate, Don Williams commented that the work on the major initiatives is clearly not done yet, and that it’s well known that the bulk of legislation is acted upon in the final third of the session. Speaker Amann had a zinger in response to accusations of receiving a failing grade on the Republican’s “report card”: “When you are in the middle of ‘March Madness’, it doesn’t matter what the score is at halftime. The only score that matters is when the game is over!”

Well, here's the score so far: The Energy Committee had their JF deadline on March 13. While legislators agree on parts of energy solutions such as tax breaks for energy efficient appliances, other details still need to be hammered out. House Minority Leader Larry Cafero said he's afraid of an omnibus energy bill that will "die of its own weight".

Healthcare faces the same problem. HB 6652, the universal healthcare bill that previously included a provider tax, was favorably voted out of the Insurance Committee with substitute language. The Governor's Charter Oak healthcare bill was sent to Appropriations for further consideration. And the Public Health committee, which still contains Senator Williams' healthcare bill, SB 1, has its JF deadline on Monday. With so many pieces floating around, it will be a challenge fitting the puzzle together before June 6.

Democrats have been accusing the Republican Minority that political grandstanding will not fix Connecticut’s problems. However, with such a small minority, the Republicans must use every angle and opportunity at their disposal to have their voices heard. In fact, Rep. Gibbons said at the Human Services JF meeting that her party told her not to put bills on the consent calendar during committee meetings in order to slow things down as much as possible! Without the numbers to control any committee in the General Assembly, the minority is sometimes left with only one thing to do: make sure that the majority follows through on their promises. Rest assured, the Republicans will be watching.

How does one police honesty? Debates about crossing ethical lines have been popping up all over recently. There’s the thing about the Speaker’s job, the minority House leader’s employment, the Governor’s Office using a public list for campaigns, legislators sitting on committees that directly relate to their employment, the list just keeps growing.

These and other concerns are leading legislators to reevaluate the political and ethical landscape of Connecticut’s government. Specifically, the question arises: when the laws of the land affect every person and every business in CT, how can professional and political roles not overlap? One idea that is resurfacing and getting a little more traction than the last time it was raised is a move to a full-time legislature.

Chris Caruso, Chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE), offered his opinion on a full time legislature: “If we want to cleanse the legislature of conflicts or perceived conflicts, there is no way around it.” Still others such as Speaker Amann, Rep. Merrill, and Rep. Belden have spoken out against such an idea. Belden, the long-serving member of the legislature, is sticking with the original premise of a “citizen legislature”.

Leaders seem to be the most scrutinized since they personally control the scheduling of every bill for debate, and have significant roles in the passage or defeat of numerous controversial issues, as well as day to day issues. An ethical conflict for them could have widespread repercussions. However, most, if not all, of the legislators have an ethical tightrope to walk. Of all 187 legislators, only 29 list legislator as their full time job. Because of this, CT truly has a citizen legislature. Each member represents not only a different district, but also different occupations and interests to give them a unique perspective.

These differences only add to the depth and quality of discussion at the Capitol. Yet, these same personal and professional ties may cause an ethical conflict. Would that change in a full-time legislature? The Hartford Courant says no, along with others who have pointed out that legislators can’t just stop living and interacting outside the walls of the LOB. Spouses/family members still have jobs; legislators still have community involvements. Personal and professional ties cannot be dissolved regardless of the level of legislative employment.

Nonetheless, GAE will explore the question of a full- time legislature with a salary of $110,000 and a bipartisan commission will consider increasing leadership’s pay to compensate for the amount of “part-time” work involved and indexing rank and file compensation. Everyone is talking about how to avoid the appearance of conflicts, and if legislators should voluntarily cut professional and political ties to avoid the appearance of impropriety. No union workers on the Labor Committee, no practicing healthcare providers on the Public Health Committee, leave the educators off the Education Committee and definitely no lawyers on the Judiciary Committee – that’s a giant leap for any government.