Hartford Business Journal

www.HartfordBusiness.com • February 10, 2020 • Hartford Business Journal 25 OPINION & COMMENTARY OTHER VOICES Blink, and you'll miss the 2020 legislative session By Roy Occhiogrosso T he 2020 General Assembly is now in session and scheduled to end May 6. Blink, and you'll miss it. But, you say to yourself, that's more than three months — plenty of time to do the people's busi- ness. Except it's actually not a lot of time. The legisla- tive process is, by design, slow, deliberative and laborious. In these so-called "short session" years, longer six-month sessions get condensed into three months. That means deadlines for committees to vote on bills are on you before you know it. In addition, the number of days each chamber has to come into session to debate and vote on bills is drastically reduced. Why is this the case? Our legislature is theoretically a part-time, citizens' body. Most of the protocols and schedules that guide our legislative process were developed many years ago, back when we were an agrarian society. The issues those legislatures dealt with weren't nearly as complex as the issues they deal with today. And for sure, the issues in even-numbered years are no less complex than the issues that arise in odd-numbered years, when ses- sions last six months. Think about the high-profile issues this legislature is set to contend with this year: transportation and tolls, recreational marijuana, the expan- sion of gaming and the cost of health care. And there are plenty others. It's as if it takes six months to build a house, but this year you only have three months to do it. So, what impact does a short session have on the policymaking process? First, it means that many of the issues — including some or all of the complex ones — will fall by the wayside because there just won't be enough time to deal with them. Second, it means that some is- sues that should get the benefit of going through the entire legislative process — including committee meetings and public hearings — will instead be introduced at the eleventh hour, in amendment form, late in the session. That means the public won't have time to weigh in, and many legislators won't get the benefit of hearing expert testimony — and a chance to ask questions of those experts — in committee. Some people say we should keep the schedule the way it is, because even-numbered years are also elec- tion years for legislators. I don't buy that argument, because most legislative campaigns don't get go- ing in earnest until early summer. The reality is, being a legisla- tor has been a full-time job for a long time. Asking people to do a full-time job in six months is hard enough; asking them to do it in three months is just plain silly. And while we're at it, kudos to state Sen. Norm Needleman (D- Essex). Last month Needleman said he's going to use this session to push for legislators to get a pay raise. Good, they deserve it. They haven't had one in almost 20 years, and it's long overdue. I advocated for the same thing in a column I wrote last year. Bottom line: We ask a lot of our legislators as individuals. We ask them to "fix" our economy, improve our schools, control the cost of health care, protect our privacy in an increasingly scary world, take care of the tens of thousands of people who depend on government for assistance, and protect our civil and human rights. And more. We ask a lot so we should give them time to do their jobs. Roy Occhiogrosso is the managing director of Global Strategy Group in Hartford, a public relations and research firm. He also served as a senior advisor to former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. Roy Occhiogrosso Less is more. But before you put in that application to work for Porsche in Zuffenhausen, it is only a matter of time before the American work week also becomes shorter. A shorter work week will have sig- nificant implications on what we do with that time, what economists call leisure. My slightly cloudy crystal ball tells me that the future for busi- ness is in capturing a greater share of consumers' leisure budgets. We already see this in the explo- sion of companies like Netflix to en- tertain us at home and on our mobile phones. We see it in the gig economy where workers who have more leisure choose to turn their personal cars into transportation services. We see our homes being turned into vacation rentals as traditional hotels struggle to keep up with the growing global demand. Domestic and international air travel in the U.S. has increased from 700 million passengers in 2003 to over 1 billion passengers in 2018. None of this is possible without increased leisure time, productivity and income. My crystal ball fails miserably when it comes to drilling down to the specif- ic types of technologies and companies that small and diverse entrepreneurs should think about to take advantage of this massive social change. However, entrepreneurs should consider how younger consumers and younger professionals are spending their leisure dollars, and at the other end of the age spectrum, how older consumers are doing the same. The former group sets trends and adopts changes early, while older consumers have the money and wealth to spend unlike their younger children and grandchildren. Forget about manufacturing. The future is in leisure. Fred McKinney is the Carlton Highsmith Chair for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and director of the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Quinnipiac University School of Business. important industries over the years (manufacturing and insurance) that instead of shepherding them, quite frankly they've done the opposite." He said Connecticut, like other states, has fallen short in developing its future workforce for key industries, something the Lamont administration is trying to reverse. His main point, which I agree with, is that high-cost jurisdic- tions must have a way to mitigate costs for businesses in order to be more competi- tive. If, for example, Florida and Connecticut join the same no-poaching compact, the Sunshine State gains a bigger advantage because it's a lower-cost destination. If Connecticut can use incentives responsibly to mitigate (not eliminate) that cost differential, it can take advantage of a more highly skilled and edu- cated workforce, swinging the pendulum. "You can argue about the quality of workforce and schools, but they all come with a cost," Stringer said. "If you can find a way to mitigate that cost, even a little, then you are maximizing your value proposition." Instead of pursuing the interstate compact, lawmakers should focus on supporting the Lamont administration's new incentive program, which I believe is much more sensible than what's been done in the past and will prevent some of the corporate blackmail that ran rampant under the Malloy administration because it provides clear and strict parameters for which companies qualify for aid and how. The new incentive program — called Jobs CT — will reward companies in specific industries (financial services, aerospace/defense, IT, life sciences, manufacturing and digital media, among others) that create at least 25 jobs paying 85% or more of the median household income in the municipality where the jobs will be located. The company would be reimbursed an amount equal to 25% of the state income tax paid by the new employees. The benefit would increase to 50% of the state income tax paid if a company is located within an Opportunity Zone. The payments would start at the beginning of year three and run through year seven. Let's approve this program, give it a chance to work and closely track its progress. In the meantime, lawmakers should continue to focus on getting our state's fis- cal and economic house in order while building up our cities, including Hartford, New Haven and Stamford. That way we won't have to worry as much about other states poaching our companies and workforce talent.

• Cover