[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6325222,"mediaKeyId","2334276-74c94f8f8c4927dd34c6a1afdfece458","parentId",2334276,"title","Business group backs bill to force periodic review of state regulations, urges public posting","audioSeconds",819,"startMs",1657000,"endMs",2476000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334276-74c94f8f8c4927dd34c6a1afdfece458&start=1657&end=2476","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334276-74c94f8f8c4927dd34c6a1afdfece458/thumbnail_1657000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6325222/Connecticut/Business-group-backs-bill-to-force-periodic-review-of-state-regulations-urges-public-posting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325222-81434aba772e241b75a0de3ff13787b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155295&Signature=ii~d77CxlBAGz6Z~wFbSMllO-B00fd399L0IH3HYw35vtqgCuMeUDg~AcKm5jeRnxr3JHIo4Hd~EzHhdjiRWvU-w56ekCQ3Qey~iWMnc4UIc4ZExigYnbwRvQDHdVz7AcXbAiKpdIpXNwdVbcLkpR93W9Bcw1szOMT~B3Kpky~v4TSlpfECisMIhJPaSG3jn0xrDcf7VcEg0VCYwtfmclc3IfkP4y4cw8FXicTUQI0RUFrs7c9hmyNzCYmx3eFe0JjWQfMx1fIzFwZFpQwA4HJdG2co~tPcczRs68-SL2YnvleXwgMnY16xHmOkAWmahbrXauTK5ok9MLSwFd76gnA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CGA - Government Oversight Committee","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Government Oversight Committee heard testimony Feb. 18 in favor of House Bill 6073, a proposal to impose a process and timeline for state agencies to review existing regulations and identify obsolete, inconsistent or ineffective rules.

\"By requiring state agencies to review and identify obsolete, inconsistent, and ineffective regulations, this bill represents a significant opportunity to modernize Connecticut's regulatory environment,\" Christopher Davis, vice president of public policy for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA), told the committee.

Davis said CBIA's research and its Opportunity Connecticut plan — developed through 30 statewide forums — found that Connecticut businesses cited regulatory climate as a top challenge for growth. He recommended several best practices drawn from other states, including regular review cycles (the draft bill specified seven years; Davis and some witnesses suggested five years), public portals for submissions and clearer timelines for permitting decisions.

Representative Dathan and others discussed examples where regulatory modernization is already underway: Davis cited the long-running effort to convert the Transfer Act's decades-old rules into \"release-based\" regulations at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a process he said has taken roughly five years.

CBIA asked that agency review reports be posted to committee websites or the state's eReg system to improve public access. Committee members and business advocates also raised specific complaints: multiple permits required across agencies, unclear or open-ended permitting timelines, and the lack of consolidated portals that allow applicants to track progress through different agencies.

Public commenters including Josiah Schley urged shortening the review period from seven years to five and recommended that when new regulations are added, an old regulation be removed to reduce regulatory accumulation.

Ending: The bill aims to standardize regulatory review to reduce burdens on businesses and improve transparency; the committee will weigh stakeholder suggestions — including changes to the review cycle and public-access provisions — before advancing language.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Government Oversight Public Hearing 2/18/25 1A","oneSentenceSummary","The Connecticut Business & Industry Association urged the Government Oversight Committee to pass HB 6073, which would require agencies to review regulations on a set timetable, identify obsolete or inconsistent rules, and report findings; CBIA recommended posting agency review reports to make the process more accessible to the public.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature CT, Connecticut","taxId",77677,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6325227,"Office of State Ethics seeks wider SFI filings and retirement-plan exemptions",0,818000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334276-74c94f8f8c4927dd34c6a1afdfece458&start=818&end=818","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334276-74c94f8f8c4927dd34c6a1afdfece458/thumbnail_818000.jpg","/articles/6325227/Connecticut/Office-of-State-Ethics-seeks-wider-SFI-filings-and-retirement-plan-exemptions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325227-317ae9a4bf91385e2025dcc88b0c9362/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155295&Signature=kWHtFU0HYlZ40XTw8qFdSlMRcloVsoi1TwpqxModrw3o0nHtgnCkN-vNoLWlK3Ph2mGTztvgSN0BW38ouodduFrT8LBlIRQ3Gcea3z3ZIlB1~EIgxk7HIgVGsW9tG2of-K1IhogSPDnrC-x9KUAMe8kTCiCxKBsMMEvPkrzKTF3wovQcrDGGhXOWDDehKw9ldmGP3aTVx0lJPzUdwIjEGQ59hwmdJ4aqMA3cQnrL9zNC8WgV3aV6qBHpt-PiB3wAYOb371cOEs9NG9c9qR9VBZNnmGU-cjMEYtoNLaUwJa~spBD~z1IPhKnfud52xkBemjQhwS8nR6d7l4UsSPWlQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Government Oversight Committee on Feb. 18 heard testimony from the Office of State Ethics supporting Senate Bill 1296, which would revise filing requirements and disclosure rules for Statements of Financial Interests (SFI).

\"This bill makes necessary updates concerning filing requirements and disclosures to the statement of financial interests,\" Peter Lewandowski, executive director of the Office of State Ethics, told the committee. He said the bill would amend Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-83 to require certain executive-branch board, commission and council members to file SFIs — specifically those who exercise authority to enter into or approve large state construction or procurement contracts, as defined in the bill.

Lewandowski told the committee that the bill's contract threshold corresponds to contracts valued at $500,000 or more. \"That section really applies to any contracts valued at $500,000 or more,\" he said, referencing the proposed statutory definition. He noted that while many executive boards already file SFIs under the governor's designation, some boards do not, and the statutory change would create uniformity and increase public transparency.

The bill would also extend existing exemptions for reporting securities to include retirement plans under section 403 of the Internal Revenue Code, bringing 403 plans in line with current exemptions for 457 plans and 401(k) plans, Lewandowski said.

Public commenters urged swift passage and linked SFI changes to concerns about undue industry influence in particular regulatory programs. Christina Capitan of CT Canaworkers pressed that the Department of Consumer Protection's medical cannabis work needs stronger transparency and financial-disclosure safeguards, and Josiah Schley and Olivia Rinkus also supported broader disclosure and protections.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing; the bill will remain under consideration as members review statutory language and stakeholder input.

Ending: The Office of State Ethics framed SB 1296 as a targeted change to make SFI filing and reporting more consistent across state entities, while public advocates asked that the committee consider broader disclosure and data-access protections.","At a Feb. 18 public hearing the Office of State Ethics backed Senate Bill 1296 to expand who must file Statements of Financial Interests and to exempt 403(b)-type retirement plans from security reporting, arguing the changes would increase consistency and transparency.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6325233,"Office of State Ethics urges committee to extend conflict rules to officials' nonstate employers",2385,325000,2710000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334276-74c94f8f8c4927dd34c6a1afdfece458&start=325&end=2710","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334276-74c94f8f8c4927dd34c6a1afdfece458/thumbnail_325000.jpg","/articles/6325233/Connecticut/Office-of-State-Ethics-urges-committee-to-extend-conflict-rules-to-officials-nonstate-employers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325233-eb968120fbecb3264dccf68683e60757/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155295&Signature=nu4itY990X0bRZxbIGQoIwyEqarqnoq97QcozssNYOPYskblwbOykWFEa7rTBqGVPIeQlmu8IEUlIezkpyC4sqK3D9WqAd7Q7nFEOVZXRuyTMY4o8XX-I5ak7KV7e0ok8fsKisiKXGXXhScXl~YWNKTjeO3HZQnH0G~yLJyG42OeDAhpA~mUVN6dLC6xKQj9ereXDxOgiQ~gkXnaBEMi1sllIc0PAx1yvJwtlsrTFOE23fNduZjuszy6FDoTK5Hy1UUwD6scL0vDa16SP6NVmHHMWEXnMCtiaHeuSl3N282sWrQ0X1yNiVzAyVzB8PXp4nosnvqvHrTgfm~7Bg5nlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Dathan and the Government Oversight Committee heard testimony on Feb. 18 on House Bill 6931, which would expand Connecticut's code of ethics to cover conflicts tied to a public official's nonstate employer and to the nonstate employer of an official's spouse.

The bill \"makes necessary revisions to the code of ethics for public officials by extending the conflicts of interests provisions to public officials and state employees' non state employer,\" Peter Lewandowski, executive director of the Office of State Ethics, told the committee. He said the change would amend provisions now in Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-85 and §1-86.

Lewandowski said the bill is intended to close a current loophole that allows a public official or state employee to take official action that provides a direct financial benefit to his or her private employer. Under the proposal, an official would not be deemed conflicted if any benefit \"accrues to no greater extent than to any other member of the profession, occupation, group, or industry\" related to the outside employer. For elected officials, the bill limits the trigger for a substantial conflict to situations in which the official has \"actual knowledge\" that a distinct benefit will occur.

The bill would also allow an official who faces a substantial conflict to either abstain from official action or prepare a written public statement describing the matter, the nature of the conflict and the reasons the official believes they may still act in the public interest.

Senator Sampson asked why similar proposals had passed committees and the Senate previously but not become law. Lewandowski said prior concern focused on how the conflicts standard could affect legislators, given the volume and breadth of legislation. He said the current bill's shift from a \"reason to believe\" standard to an \"actual knowledge\" standard was a negotiated compromise to address those concerns.

Representative Carney and other committee members pressed whether the \"actual knowledge\" test might raise the bar too high and allow officials to avoid disclosure by claiming ignorance. Lewandowski replied that substantial conflicts are rare and typically involve bills that uniquely affect a single employer, not an entire industry, and that legislators are expected to do minimal due diligence before votes. He also noted an existing regulatory exemption allowing a legislator to vote on omnibus measures that contain a conflicted line item, provided the legislator abstains from floor comment on the specific conflicted matter.

Public commenters including Olivia Rinkus (UConn student and resident), Christina Capitan (CT Canaworkers), and Josiah Schley (cannabis advocate) voiced support for the bill and urged stronger transparency, with suggestions that the bill be broadened to cover special governmental employees, contractors and data-privacy protections tied to access to state information.

The committee did not take a final vote at the hearing and left the bill under consideration.

Ending: Committee members signaled interest in the measure but questioned whether the \"actual knowledge\" compromise sufficiently advances transparency; the bill will remain under review and may be revised before any committee vote.","The Office of State Ethics told the Government Oversight Committee that House Bill 6931 would close a loophole that allows public officials to take official action that benefits their private (nonstate) employer or their spouse's employer, while adding disclosure options and a narrow \"actual knowledge\" standard for elected officials.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Business group backs bill to force periodic review of state regulations, urges public posting

Office of State Ethics seeks wider SFI filings and retirement-plan exemptions

Office of State Ethics urges committee to extend conflict rules to officials' nonstate employers