Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Battle heating up in Connecticut over judges' lack of furlough days

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

September 30, 2010

Connecticut: An article published in the Hartford Courant has sparked a controversy between the three branches of government in Connecticut. Due to budget shortfalls, almost all of the state's employees were required to take four furlough days through June 2010. So far, 26 state judges have not, according to records.[1]

Chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court, Chase T. Rogers, wrote a letter to those 26 judges, asking that they, "take these days for the overall good of the [Judicial] Branch and for the morale of our dedicated employees."[1] On September 22, Governor M. Jodi Rell implored them to do the same. In a letter, she requested that the judges report to Rogers by September 27, giving the justice their dates for furlough or pay the state the amount it would have saved. Still, none of the judges came forward.[2]

So far, the letters from Rogers and Rell have phrased the situation as a request, since no one is sure of the constitutionality of requiring state employees to take unpaid days of absence. However, the Governor reminded the judges that she has "...nominated many of [you] for appointment or reappointment to the bench...," attempting to play on their loyalty. If that didn't work, she encouraged them to cooperate "...out of courtesy to me and in consideration of the will and intent of the General Assembly."[2]

The Connecticut General Assembly is responsible for reappointing judges at the end of their term. Yesterday State Representative Zeke Zalaski proposed a simple solution to the conundrum, "How about, no furloughs, no reappointment?"[3]

Because other states have also suffered from reduced budgets in this fiscal year, the outcome of this situation may have ramifications on governments past Connecticut's borders.

Footnotes