Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
The passage and signing of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s 2011-13 biennial budget last week did not ease uncertainty for many state employees and entire commissions, which stand to be reduced and/or eliminated when lawmakers begin figuring out how to distribute the money — and supporters of at least one commission are hoping to survive the shuffle.Mitchell Pearlman, former executive director of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC), said in an interview Monday that he remains worried that a planned restructuring of agencies in Malloy’s budget will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the commission. But with budget numbers and implementer bills yet to be worked out, he acknowledged that anything can happen in the coming weeks.“The latest news I have is the state has budgeted for a new Office of Governmental Accountability (OGA), and de-funding certain agencies will go into that,” Pearlman said in a phone interview. “I don’t know if it’s gone so far as to even say it’s a concept. They want to join agencies together for economy and efficiency purposes, but I’m not sure they’ve worked out anything.”The Malloy administration announced weeks ago that it was planning to form the OGA, a new umbrella agency which would include the FOIC and four other agencies — the Contracting Standards board, Ethics Commission, State Elections Enforcement Commission and Judicial Review board — and would share one commissioner. That commissioner would oversee three divisions — legal affairs and enforcement, public affairs and services and business operations.“They keep talking about sharing back-office functions, but I haven’t seen any organizational chart,” Pearlman said. “The original proposal had five agencies, but another had 11 agencies. I don’t even know who’s in and who’s out.”Gov. Malloy’s budget boasts that it cuts the total number of state agencies and commissions from 81 to 57, through reorganization and consolidation, but implementer bills must be debated and passed in the Connecticut General Assembly to put any of the plans into practice.“The only problem with the implementers is they come out at the last minute and legislators often don’t know what they’re voting on,” Pearlman said. “Often times, the legislation has problems, and there is a lack of transparency in the process. It could end up being even worse for the Freedom of Information Commission.”The good news, Pearlman said, is he has had discussions with Malloy Chief of Staff Tim Bannon regarding the proposed restructuring and has raised many of the concerns that members of the press have raised since hearing about the possible cuts to FOIC. “He’s listened to the media’s concerns with the concept of the bill and took note of the real problems that we saw. His comment was that they will attempt to do nothing that will harm the mission of the Freedom of Information Commission.”Pearlman said he doesn’t believe the Malloy administration is interested in damaging freedom of information in Connecticut, and he hopes negotiations will come to a mutually acceptable conclusion. “I take the governor at his word that they’re looking at reinventing government to make it more efficient and cost-effective. The problem is they’re looking at some agencies that simply don’t belong together, and some of the restructuring would politicize agencies that are non-political organizations.”Residents who are concerned about the future of FOIC or any other commission still have time to contact the governor’s office and their local legislators and ask them to pay specific attention to the issue. “The important thing is to contact them and say, ‘We think the Freedom of Information Commission has done what it’s supposed to do,’” Pearlman said. “If anything politicizes the organization, it will really harm the process, and God knows we’ve had enough scandals in politics and government to make what’s there necessary.”
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.