Hartford — Current and former state marshals and AFSCME representatives told the Labor Committee that state marshals carry out dangerous duties — serving court orders, executing evictions and civil arrests — and that many cannot accept appointments or stay in the corps because they lack affordable health insurance.

Union leaders said the job can expose marshals to threats, assaults and traffic‑related danger; testifying marshals described assaults, being chased, a shooting incident in Bridgeport and repeated workplace hazards. The witnesses said current practice allows marshals to participate in state employee health plans but only at full COBRA‑style cost, which most cannot afford.

Why it matters: The witnesses argued that adding state marshals to state‑employee benefit terms for health coverage would: (1) improve recruitment and retention, (2) reduce the number of marshals working other full‑time jobs to maintain coverage, and (3) provide basic protection for public servants who sometimes face violent confrontations.

Most important facts
- AFSCME and state marshal witnesses said marshals are paid into state plans but typically must pay the full premium themselves (COBRA‑level cost); several current marshals testified that they or their dependents rely on Husky or other programs for healthcare coverage because of unaffordable premiums.
- Marshals and union leaders described incidents including assaults and an on‑the‑job shooting; witnesses asked the committee to treat marshals like other public safety personnel with access to standard state employee health benefits.

Testimony in the hearing
Brian Mesick, president of AFSCME Local 2193, told the committee the union has repeatedly raised recruitment and safety concerns and that prior committee studies confirmed the problem. State marshals who testified described being chased, threatened with weapons, and one veteran recounted a gunshot wound suffered while attempting an arrest. Members said these risks and the lack of affordable insurance deter qualified applicants and force some marshals to keep second jobs.

Administration and fiscal context
Witnesses said the number of state marshals is small (testimony referenced roughly 60 marshals statewide) but the public benefit of stable, insured marshals outweighs the fiscal cost. Committee members asked for a fiscal note; AFSCME said the measure would cover fewer than 100 people but would improve recruitment, retention and public safety.

Next steps
Committee members acknowledged bipartisan support for the principle of providing health coverage but asked for a fiscal estimate and language to confirm which marshals would be covered. No vote was taken at the hearing.