Legitalk:

[Unidentified AV technician]: Check. Check. Check.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Alrighty. Good morning. Good morning. We're ready to get rocking and rolling today. Thank you so much for joining us for the public safety hearing. Today is March 3. Thank you all so much for joining us. And for those of you who will be traveling once you leave here, we wish you safe travels back to your destination. But to get started, I want to see if there's any remarks from my cochair, cochair Boyd, and then we'll turn it over to our rankings. Thank you.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, senator. No. I just I appreciate everybody coming in. I know the weather the weather is turning a little foul, but you're all here as well, and it's important. So we appreciate that, and we'll try to be efficient with your time today. So thank you. Representative DiGio Buoncarlo.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Thank you all for being here. Thank you. Look forward to hearing testimony.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Representative Howard, do you have any comments?

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Yeah. Good morning or good afternoon. Sorry. Mister chairman, the room is full of first responders driving and the snow is not new to them, so they'll be fine.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: And to senator Ciccarello that's online.

[Senator Paul Cicarella, Senate Ranking Member]: Thank you. Just wanted to apologize for not being there in person, feeling a little under the weather. Didn't wanna get anyone sick. So I look forward to getting started, and everyone drive safe.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. We hope that you feel better as well. Our first, guest, is, the comptroller, Sean Scallon. Thanks for joining us. Well,

[Sean Scanlon, Connecticut State Comptroller]: good morning, mister chairman, senator, representative, members. It's great to be here, and I will be short because I'm both a former legislator who appreciates brevity during public hearings, but also I know there's a long list of people who wanna testify. I am here today to testify in strong support of, h b five zero four six. As this committee knows, I'm here both for personal and professional reasons. My grandfather was a firefighter. My dad was a police officer. My brother is a police officer. And as a comptroller, it's my job to oversee the largest retirement and health plan for police officers and firefighters in the state of Connecticut. And as a result of that, I have been proud to work with many members of this committee and many members of the people that are in the public today, to address this crisis that we face as a state and country when it comes to, police, fire, and EMS recruitment and retention. And the governor's bill that is before this committee, I think, is a great step in the direction of other progress that we are making and other bills that this committee, will hear this session to try to address this, to make sure that, we're supporting those who currently have the jobs and that we're trying to incentivize those, to enter those jobs going forward. I will say that, I'm not gonna certainly read this testimony, but if people are not sold on the fact that this is a crisis, I would urge them to take a look at the report that we put out last year, on the state of firefighting in the state of Connecticut. It showed that we've seen a 63% reduction in the volunteer firefighting workforce just between 2018 and 2025. And the the challenges that law enforcement faces have been well documented as well. I would also respectfully request to the proponents of the bill and the committee that we do include municipal EMS. They are on the front lines as well. They face similar challenges. And I think at the very least, including the EMTs and paramedics that are employed by municipalities would be a great addition to this bill. And with that, I'll just thank both of the co chairs and the ranking members for their great support for the first responder community in the state and honored to be here today to testify in support of this great bill.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Do we have any questions coming from, members of the committee? Alright. Seeing none, thank you so much for joining us today. We appreciate Nope. Nope. Nobody's online. So thank you so much.

[Sean Scanlon, Connecticut State Comptroller]: Thanks, guys.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: You're out of the hot chair. Now we'll have our commissioner, Ronnell Higgins, to join us on today. Welcome, sir, to the committee.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Welcome. It is good to be here. Good afternoon, chairs Boyd, Gaston, ranking members Howard and Ciccarella, and the members of the public safety committee. As you know, my name is Ronnell a Higgins, and I am the commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. I am here today, and I wanna thank you for the opportunity to testify on house bill five two nine one. The bill the bill makes targeted practical updates to public safety statutes that align with my three strategic pillars, operational efficiency, efficacy, and excellence, shared fiscal responsibility, and ethics and accountability. You have my testimony, so in the interest of time, I will just read a few highlights. Section one addresses the fire services by creating a statewide directory of fire chiefs for both career and volunteer fire departments. As we sit here today, there is no statewide directory. This creates gaps during emergencies and mutual aid responses. With firefighters and firefighter numbers dwindling since 2016, and you just heard our comptroller provide you with some data on the on how we're losing firefighters. Clear communication without available personnel is more important than ever. We need to know the resources that we have and we need to know where to get them. Sections two through five address operational efficiencies within the division of scientific services. I am joined today by doctor Guy Valero who runs the Connecticut crime lab. I believe the number one crime lab in the country, and he can, provide specific answers to questions that you may have regarding the twenty four hour mailing requirement and DNA. Sections four through five address lawfully owned DNA. Again, doctor Guy Valero can speak to that. Section eight streamlines the school security grant program by transferring full authority to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Currently, the state Department of Education has that authority even though DESP administers it. What we're asking for is to streamline the processes to just transfer that over to DESP so we can be the ones that go to the bond commission and get that and get what we need on the bond agenda. Agenda. Section 11 addresses firearm storage following risk protection orders. I'm joined today by several members of the Connecticut State Police, but captain Josh Papberg will be able to speak to any questions that you may have regarding risk protective orders in firearm storage in the state of Connecticut. In closing, h b fifty two ninety one modernizes existing public safety statutes, improves efficiency, and strengthens accountability. I wanna thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, representative Boyd. I mean

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, mister cochair. Commissioner, thank you for for all you do and and your thoughtful, engagement and not just in this bill, but on on pretty much everything we do, in the committee. And I I just wanna go out there. Your partnership is is valued here. Just a couple questions that have come up in a couple different sections since this is a a fairly large bill. You know, specifically to section seven, which talks about the the status of the and the size of the state police force. Right? And over the years, there's been some statutory language putting a certain number. There's been some language about it in the judgment of and that that piece of it. If you could just apply in a little bit on kinda not just the change here, but kinda what the vision is for what our level of staffing, might or should be, with the state police.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: So as so, representative Boyd, as we sit here today, we are at 922 strong. We have 27 recruits that are in the academy today. We need every bit of 12 to thirteen hundred hundred state troopers at any given time to provide, the services, or or to to make certain that the service delivery is what we want and to reduce the number of hours that are being worked currently by our troopers. So I I believe we need every bit I mean, 1,200 be would be good. 1,300 would be great.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: What is the realistic number over the next two years, let's

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: say? Realistically, over the next two years, it it is going to be tough. Because as we're continuing to recruit, train, and field new troopers, we have some of the larger classes that have been sat over the years. They're gonna be retiring. So as we lose as we gain 20 to 30 or 40, we're losing 20 to 30 or 40 or more, or others who just over the course of a career just move on for or no longer with us for whatever reason. So we need to do something, and we need to do something fast to retain those who we have while we're continuing to innovate and recruit more members into the ranks.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Would it be beneficial for this group to advocate, as we did a couple years ago for additional trainee troops in a budget cycle, or you're filling them with what you can and hoping that attrition I know there's some some difficulties getting a class over the finish line. Would that be helpful to the agency if you're budgeted to have additional training troops in a in a budget year?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: I I I would I would say that the three three classes a year I mean, you have to think about the what it takes to to to put a class through. I think three classes a year is fine. I would I would ask you to advocate for pathways into the profession, pathways into the Connecticut State Police. I believe we need to do more on the front end to get, younger people interested and create a more of a clear pathway into the Connecticut State Police. And I also, am interested in in looking at potentially studying, you know, the ideal the ideal trooper because we we receive up to a thousand applicants at any given time. And throughout the course of the process, they wash out what it's in the background. I'd like to take a look at what got those those troopers that are currently working. What got them through? What should we be looking for? And then focus on those qualities, those characteristics so that we can improve our success and reduce the washout rate. That is so important.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Is it is it easy to point to the washout? Is it is it physical fitness? Is it the academic rigor? Is it you know, it's hard to to categorize, but what what is the the kind of the main reasons folks are washing out of the academy?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: I mean, physical fitness is is always there, but I wouldn't say that that's the main one. I think oftentimes people believe that the job is something that it's not. They that once once you know, it's it looks great on the outside, but once it's time to actually train and prepare for a career as a trooper or within public safety, some just don't wanna make the commitment or they just realize it's not for them.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Yeah.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: And that's okay. Yeah. But perhaps we should be looking a little differently at who we're selecting so that we can improve the success rate and that we're not finding ourselves in a situation within the first week or two or three where they're saying this isn't for me. After all that effort has been expended, the background I mean, everything has been already done. Time has been invested. Money has been spent this to get them in that seat.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Great. Thank you. And my second question is really with section five, which is the scientific services piece there. So I don't know if doctor Valero, you wanna

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Doctor v, could you

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: You jump up to on the side here. You you can stay commissioner. He can he

[Unidentified committee/staff interjection]: can put that in.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Welcome back to the the committee. Thank you. Just for the record, just state your name and and title. It's Guy Valero.

[Dr. Guy Vallaro, Director, Division of Scientific Services (State Crime Lab), DESPP]: I'm the director of division of scientific services, DUSP.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. So section five, it talks about kind of the outlines, the lawfully owned DNA piece. Can you just kinda walk through in a little more detail because that's such a personal thing, and often we would get lots of questions about, you know, how the state handles DNA and and sensitive material. So if you could just walk through that section.

[Dr. Guy Vallaro, Director, Division of Scientific Services (State Crime Lab), DESPP]: So this is for the database that contains convicted offenders' profiles and lawfully owed DNA are for people that commit felonies and and some misdemeanors here in Connecticut, get sent to the laboratory. A laboratory does the analysis and the profiles are then placed into, the CODIS database. And upon, finding evidence that matches to that profile in the database, we put out what's called a hit report that associates the evidence to the convicted offender.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: And and the study that the the section's asking for, is that are we looking to kinda redo the process or identify weakness?

[Dr. Guy Vallaro, Director, Division of Scientific Services (State Crime Lab), DESPP]: I'm just It's it's to identify, potential shortfalls in the in the current process. And and so when I was a director in Massachusetts, the collection was under the purview of the laboratory, under my purview. And we did an audit, we found approximately 25,000, convicted offenders should have been in a database that weren't in a database. And, that's that's a example of, New England. Nationwide, it's a known phenomena that, there are people that should be in a database that are not. And we believe there's, it it it's in Connecticut as well. Okay.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: So so in effect that you're trying to audit to see where short term lease are? Okay. It's very helpful.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Okay. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, representative Howard.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you, mister chairman. Doctor Valero. Good more or good afternoon. Sorry. The sections two and three are in the chemical test. We did that in 2024, and it just never got called in the senate, but we didn't approach it in 2025. Is it just something we didn't get to, or is there some new opposition to that?

[Dr. Guy Vallaro, Director, Division of Scientific Services (State Crime Lab), DESPP]: We didn't submit it. We yeah. We just didn't

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: get to. Okay. I just wanna make sure. And then section four regarding the collection of DNA, in line one twenty one of the bill, we're removing as available resources allow, which means that this is gonna be now be a statutory requirement on law enforcement agencies that they have to do this. Has there been conversation with and and they're here. I can ask them too. But the police chiefs, are all the police departments equipped to do that? Do they have the the necessary, you know, swabs, etcetera, and the and the individuals trained to do that? So most of

[Dr. Guy Vallaro, Director, Division of Scientific Services (State Crime Lab), DESPP]: the collection is done by Department of Corrections and Prole and Probation. There's almost it's it's minuscule what's done by police.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Well, I understand that. But section four, beginning on line one sixteen, currently, the the police agency, law enforcement agency that arrested a person is only is only required to collect their DNA as their available resources allow resources, could be the equipment to do it, the personnel to do it, etcetera. We're taking that out. So I I rec so there's probably two reasons why it's mostly done at DOC. One is probably because of the way the statutes were in, but also because not all police departments have to do it. Now they're going to have to. Do have there been any conversation with them to make sure they're equipped and

[Dr. Guy Vallaro, Director, Division of Scientific Services (State Crime Lab), DESPP]: ready to do that? Well, we they do have materials as it's the same type of devices that's used to collect from evidence DNA swabs.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Okay. I I I guess my only concern is that there's you know, there are smaller police departments that generally, you know, will have some number of police officers that small, maybe not trained in that. A lot of times they'll rely on, you know, the van or something like that. So I guess I'll I'll jot down on that with CPCA. But thank you. Commissioner, section six, line two sixty three, we're talking about the deputy commissioner of the division of state police at the colonel?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Yes.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Alright. And and I assume that that's for consistency. The commanding officer probably changes too much. Is that what we're trying to accomplish here is keep consistency with the state police representation on post?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: No. Okay. Rep representative Howard. I believe what you are reading is the addition of a deputy commissioner about the the addition to the of a deputy commissioner to the agency. The purpose of a third deputy commissioner to DESP would be ultimately so that there's a deputy commissioner another deputy commissioner that serves at the pleasure of the commissioner according to statute 29 dash one r, but also to assist the commissioner in the administration of DESP. And and that deputy commissioner's role would encompass a wide range of areas to include infrastructure operations, compliance, communications, government relations, outreach, external relationship management, and strategic planning initiatives. That would ensure that there is senior level sponsorship, executive sponsorship over some of our our biggest, initiatives. For example, Clean Slate. Prior to my involvement in Clean Slate, there was no executive sponsorship. So when we had to reorganize and recalibrate in order to get the Clean Slate project over the line, but for executive sponsorship and me having the right people in place, we wouldn't have been able to do it. I was surprised that DESP doesn't did not have a a front office where all of that was consolidated. We had the functions, but it wasn't consolidated under one individual. For consistency, even after myself, from administration to administration, the agency will if if if we get this position, we'll have a deputy commissioners whose sole responsibility is for those things that I just mentioned. It'll bring about, as I shared earlier, more efficiency, fiscal accountability, ethics and accountability, and compliance.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: So I I appreciate all that. But I was talking about section six of the bill, which is the assignment to post. So right now, the section six of the bill is seven two ninety four b and sub nine line two sixty three. Currently, the commanding officer of the academy sits on post council.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Oh, my apologies.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: That's okay. Right answer, wrong

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: question. That's alright. We use the same words throughout the entire statute. It's no big deal.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: And you

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: know what? You're doing a great job justifying that role, so I'm letting it go.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Yeah. But just going back to to where my original question. So But as far as the state police representation on post Yeah. Currently, it's the commanding officer of the academy. Yes. We're switching that to deputy commission division state police, and there's a drafting area there drafting error.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Drafting error.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: But in short, is it your intent to have the colonel on both

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: The colonel gets the the colonel will I will put somebody on. In other words Or his designee. Right? His designee person.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Okay. To have consistency as opposed to that one person that did that's the x o of the account the account. That's the account. Okay. I just wanna get clarification on that and important good opportunity to explain that other spot, which is great. I think we covered this. The issue about permits for pyrotechnics, So good so there's two aspects of this, good moral character and then the the the records check, the fingerprint, which would be fingerprint required because it references twenty nine seventeen a. So the good moral character, would would that be so the state police gonna do, you know, somewhat similar invest background investigation on these folks like you would do for a pistol permit or something like that?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: So something like that. I I'd like to call on captain Pat Burke to provide some specifics on Yeah.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Welcome, captain. Thank you.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: Good afternoon.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Sorry. He go ahead. He he just has to Yes.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: For the record, could you please state your name and title, please?

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: Yes. Captain Josh Patberg.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank Thank you so much, representative Howard.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you, sir. Thank thank you, captain. So I just I just want to just ask, I mean, because certainly the the fingerprints for the background check will tell you somebody's criminal history, but their moral character wouldn't be contained therein. Right? There's people with criminal histories that have good moral character, and there's people who don't have good moral character that have been arrested. Right? We we both know that. But so what's the vision there for for doing that? Is and is that, like, a new responsibility we're putting on troopers who are already strapped? That's my concern.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: It isn't necessarily responsibility for our troopers as it is procedural process and doing the background of somebody that's an applicant for special effects or a fireworks shooter. So, basically, we would be looking for, you know, the the moral standing of somebody, yes, based on their criminal background. And, you know, an example of that would be when we would get a background check back on them, a fingerprint supported background check, making the assessment, do we really wanna put in this person's hands essentially explosives to do a firework show when they have a record that is would be suspect in allowing them

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: to do so? So agreed. And I guess my only concern is we're adding we're adding another requirement to your agency before this permit goes out. Right? So now well, actually, really two. Fingerprints for the background check and some sort of mechanism to determine good moral character, which I assume would be a background investigation. Those types of background investigations, when you do them for troopers, when you do them for pistol permits, you know, in in towns that you cover through the residency trooper program, I assume it's a sworn person that does those background checks?

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: So you bring up a good point. It isn't really a background check-in the sense of what we had to go through to be police officers. Sure. It's more of a criminal history check. So we do a criminal history check based on the out of state return and the in state return. We review it administratively, and we make a decision on whether we're gonna grant that certificate that applicant the certificate or not based mainly off of their criminal history record, not so much as, like, a door to door, you know, neighborhood canvas that we would do in a real background investigation. So to answer your question, if I think what you're getting at is is it going to be a a significant increase into the workload of the specialized licensed firearms unit? I would say it wouldn't be a great increase. But I think it's a necessary one to make sure that these people that are handling these pyrotechnics and explosives have a good, you know, clean record.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you. And then just a couple of things. We could talk about RPO separately. I I I I've I'm not necessarily opposed to the language. I'll I have concerns over destroying people's property if they're making effort to get back, and we could talk more about that. But the other thing is going into section 12, so it it's there this is sort of a a a place where where you could avoid training to be a security guard if you come from a police department, for example. In line six twenty three, it says that the officer has to separate from service in good standing. Do Do you have any so I'm not sure if you filed the papers at all, but we had an issue come up a few months ago where armed security officers who have the same requirement and statute, retired police officers in good standing to go work as an armed security officer in a school and who have done that that left, according to news reports, police departments while under investigation. Statutes prohibit a police officer, as you probably know, who left our investigation being hired somebody else. So we had to change that. Any opposition to us changing, you know, referencing good standing, meaning you're eligible to be hired by another police department? Because I just wanna create another loophole like we did with armed security officers. Do you follow all that? Sorry.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: I think I do. It is my understanding that you would have to get a letter of good standing from the police department in which you left

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Okay.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: To to establish that.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Okay. And then I think the only other question I know we talked briefly about this earlier. So the last section about the permit for bail enforcement agents. Do you have the bill in front of you?

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: I do.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Okay. If you jump down to line seven ninety seven where it talks about that, as I read it, it says that that DESP may grant any professional bondman bondsman license under blah blah blah, Shirley Bailey, agent license under Inclusive, a permit to carry an electronic defense weapon while engaging the business of professional bondsman, and it goes on to talk about the training. As I read that language, it seems to me that the preceding paragraph so under current law, right, if a bail enforcement agent for first thing they need to do if they wanna carry a firearm when they're acting as a bail enforcement agent is get their pistol permit like everybody else does. So they get their pistol permit. Then they wanna be able to carry a firearm while they're acting as a bail enforcement agent. They need to get a separate permit free from you, and that's sub b. And now as I read the next one, it's another permit to carry the electronic defense weapon.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: If you are have the gold card, which allows you to carry as a DEA Mhmm. With a perm with the your pistol permit, like you said, preceded your ability to carry the firearm on duty, that would cover the electronic defense weapon as well.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: So what's the nest what necessitates this new language?

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: I I think the focus is on the training. We wanna make sure that that the the BEAs are trained. And quite frankly, just give a little history, sir, is that Yeah. Last year, I think we missed the boat a little and that we wanted to ensure that security guards were trained in the weapons that they're carrying. So we got that through, and and now those people need to be trained. Those folks need to be trained to carry the the weapons that they're carrying. We should have included other disciplines in there, one being in BEA. So we set it specifically for security guards last year, but we didn't say it specifically for BEA. So I think the purpose is we wanna ensure that they're trained before they're carrying that specific weapon.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: So your read of this then is if this bill were to pass as drafted, bail enforcement agents will not need to carry two separate cards. One that allows them to carry a firearm. Obviously, they're they're permit first. That's the prerequisite, so to speak. But you're read of the languages. They're not gonna be required to carry to have a license to carry a firearm and and separately a or a permit, whatever you wanna call it.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: Not a And separate. Separate. Not separately.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Okay. Alright.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Representative, Lamarque Muir online.

[Representative LaMarque Muir (remote)]: Thank you, mister chair. Hello, commissioner Higgins. Nice to see you. Thank you for being here today. I have a cup just a couple of questions in the bill. I'd like to go back to the staffing piece, if we could. So just before I ask my question, I let I would like to say that your study of what the ideal trooper is, why, you know, why people come in, why they don't, complete the academy, I I think that's an amazing idea. That's a really good idea, and looking forward to reading that report when you finish it. So my question is on the staffing. So you mentioned that you need 1,200 to 1,300, troopers. Can you discuss a little bit about how you calculated that number?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Sure. Thank you, representative. So my my my calculation is as follows. I I have looked at the amount of the amount of geographical area different troops have to have to cover. Our our data science is currently looking at this as well. So we have to staff the troops. We have to staff different regulatory positions within headquarters and throughout the state as well. But then we also have to staff, different specialized units within the Connecticut State Police. For example, the Connecticut State Police major crime supports the office of I'm sorry. Office of inspector general. So anytime that they have a major incident, anytime that the OIG is called out, that same group that is responding to major crimes that are committed anywhere else call outs from the OIG as well. We also have the resident trooper program here within the state of Connecticut, wherein state troopers are staffed within cities and towns throughout Connecticut as well. When, representative, when we look at the number of hours and the mandatory call ins that troopers have to respond to, and these are mandatory call ins, I am concerned about their wellness. I'm concerned that if we don't start to reduce those call ins, and the only way we we reduce those call ins is by adding more people. The work is not going away. In fact, the work is increasing both the regulatory work and the work that they're being called to do in the field. And along with adding, the troopers, we have to add supervision. We we can't have additional troopers out there without the added supervision. So, although it's not a scientific analysis, we are still working through that with our datas with our data scientists in the desk team. I would submit to you that based on my experience now in in over the three years is we need to build up our ranks so that we can staff the troops around the state so that the troopers that are working three to eleven or four to twelve can go home at 11:00 or or 12:00 and not have to stay till six or 07:00 in the morning on a regular basis. Then we need to beef up our major crimes, and we also need to have other positions filled as well.

[Representative LaMarque Muir (remote)]: Thank you. So I appreciate that. What I'm some things that I I'm concerned about or I question is that, you know, in statute, there was the number. It was basically December. That was set back in the late nineteen nineties. I was actually around as a staff person then. And I know that number was not based on any sort of formula or calculation or review. It was really just a number that was kinda pulled out of a hat. And it's sort of become the threshold of the number of troopers we need. So I see that there's a a section in there that takes out a mandated study by program review, which no longer exists. So I understand why that's being taken out. Would you support or in any way an actual study to look at by, say, an outside entity to actually look at the staffing levels in the department?

[John Carew, Past President, Connecticut City Firefighters Association]: Rep

[Representative LaMarque Muir (remote)]: The division. I'm sorry. The division of state police, not the whole department.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Sure. We we are actually working with OPM on that right now. We we agreed we we actually asked for a study, and we're working with OPM on that right now. My hope is that with this within this calendar year, that study will commence. So, absolutely, I support that.

[Representative LaMarque Muir (remote)]: Okay. Great. And you mentioned regulatory positions and positions in headquarters, and I know coming from a police department that this is sort of an an age old issue about having sworn personnel do do functions that could be performed by other professional civilian, if you will, personnel. Are you looking at those positions in your regulatory functions and in your headquarters that could be performed by and I'm gonna use the term civilians, civilian personnel, professional personnel?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Absolutely. And so when I when I speak to different regulatory positions, you heard, captain Pat Berg earlier speak to special licensing in firearms. That is a position that has to be held by a sworn person. When you when I talk about regulatory positions, I'm speaking to positions like, those who are assigned to our sex offender registry. There has to be sworn, troopers that are working in that unit. There are some position and and listen, we have spoken with the union and will continue to talk to the union about the art of the possible. But, yes, to answer your question, we are absolutely looking at different positions within HQ that can be, better suited by, a civilian with with the skill set. Listen, we we want our troopers out on the road or assigned to units where they're gonna be where they're gonna be performing at their highest best use. They're they're highly trained, and we want them doing the work that they signed up to do and we want them to do.

[Representative LaMarque Muir (remote)]: Mhmm. Great. Thank you. No. I I appreciate that, and I know that's sort of a long standing issue in police departments. But in in some functions, if there's a a sworn trooper that oversees a unit that is comprised of some staff that are civilians. I mean, I think that a lot of times to me, that always seemed like a better use of resources rather than having, say, all sworn personnel in a unit. The other thing that comes with looking at staffing and personnel, right, is is always the overtime. You know, we know that the department has a you know, has an increasing amount of overtime each year. Are you looking at all at the auditor's report? I know the auditor's reports over the past couple years have identified some record keeping and management issues that may be contributing so that it's not necessarily just a lack of staff. There may be some other reasons why the overtime is not being managed well. Are are you looking at that and and thinking to comply with the auditors' reports?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Absolutely. One of the one of the first things. So there was an audit that was ongoing prior to my arrival, and a report was released, I believe it was last year. And what I shared with my team is now that we have a report, I don't believe in putting a report in a binder and putting it on a shelf. So we're gonna look at that report, and we're gonna make absolutely certain that whatever deficiencies were discovered, we're gonna work to improve. So, yes, we are currently and regularly looking at overtime. I meet my my CFO, myself, my chief of staff, doctor Valera knows this. I meet with every one of my division heads and other unit heads once a month to look at overtime to see how it's being expended to make certain that we're reducing where we can reduce. But the reality is, we we we don't get more with less. Mandatory call ins and a lot of the work that needs to be performed after hours requires overtime. But I am sensitive to to the criticism that we've received about overtime over the years.

[Representative LaMarque Muir (remote)]: Yeah. I appreciate that. Thank you for for looking at that. And I and I understand that, you know, we've we've always asked our law enforcement to do more, you know, the mission creep. Police officers are asked to do more and more. I just think it's interesting that, you know, we haven't hit that magic 1,200 number in the past twenty five years, and yet your department still manages to perform, with excellence in such a high quality, service for our state residents. So I appreciate that. Can I you haven't you didn't testify about house bill fifty forty six about recruitment and retention, but would you mind if I asked you a question about that?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Not at all.

[Representative LaMarque Muir (remote)]: Okay. So, I mean, law enforcement is no exception. Right? All our our industries or every sector of our economy is struggling to recruit and retain employees. And I'm just wondering, are I think the recommendations for the the mortgage rates and the, you know, paying for the education are good ideas. But in terms of what you're seeing, the people that you're recruiting, you're going through the background track. Do you think that's the only thing that's gonna attract them? Are there other suggestions you have? I mean, when I I've been doing a lot of work in this area, and I talk to young people or people who are interested in changing careers, and they don't really talk about, you know, wanting to go back to college as one of the barriers. I mean, I could share that with you, but what what do you see? Are there other things that we could be doing in addition to, tuition and and mortgage?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Thank you for that question, representative. So first and foremost, I just wanna say that I fully support the governor's bill, and I I think the bill does a couple of things. It highlights as the existing or advances the existing partnerships that exist between Connecticut higher education and police and fire. That is solid. So we already have relationships with them. This advances that. The other thing that it does, it is also addresses the the the ability of of a police or fireman to afford a home. Okay? So that that becomes a pain point for for younger people who wanna enter into the profession. Things are expensive. But are there more things that can be done? Absolutely. In fact, I spoke this morning about one thing that I recommended, and that was as opposed to having that young police or firefighter wait until they have achieved five years of service to flip it. Once they've completed their working test period within their fire department or their police department, they should be eligible, for the educational benefit and then require them to remain with that agency for at least five years after they've completed their education. Education. That's one thing. The second thing, and I know this is already being worked on, so forgive me if I'm being redundant, but an another pain point for young people is child care, especially child care for public safety professionals like police and firemen who work around the clock. So some sort of incentive or stipend for child care, and at the same time, incentivize child care providers to stay open later so that those of us who are working around the clock and have some place to drop their their sons or their daughters off. But for my parents being able to take care of my children, I don't know what I would have done. There's others in that that situation as well. So I I I I do think that, collectively, we can put our our heads together and and come up with a number of things, but those are two that that stick out for me.

[Representative LaMarque Muir (remote)]: I think the childcare one is a really great idea. That was one I didn't have on my list, but I I will throw out there. And the people that I've been talking to about this, and and it ties into that childcare. Another barrier for people is the residential academies. I mean, I think it would be really helpful to look at more commuter academies. So people who are coming in that have children or just they they have a it it doesn't work with their balance to go and live at the academy for six months. I know you get weekends off, but looking at a commuter academy like many municipal police departments have, I think that might might be something. And I I like what you said about a link to the, the our colleges, our state universities. Because a lot of the people I talk to, young people and sort of middle aged people that are looking to change their career, which I think is a whole employment pool that really isn't targeted, that that sort of, you know, that warrior the warrior versus guardian mindset that, oh, both traditional warrior academy, you know, yelling and running up and down the stairs and all that kind of stuff. I mean, that's just not really appealing to the people who are looking to go into the profession now. So I I just feel like any sort of link that you could make to a a higher institute of higher education and and pulling some of that, you know, that sort of campus vibe to train the training academy, I think, would really be attractive, to some of the focus groups that I've been talking to. But I appreciate your time. I appreciate your work in the department, and thank you for all the good ideas that you've just mentioned. So thank you. Thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you very much, and thank you, commissioner. I do see another hand raised online, but just also wanted to interject and say that I know that we have a lot of questions, but we do have a robust agenda. And this is one of the most efficient committees in the building, and I would like to continue to keep our record going. So with that being said, representative Hall.

[Representative Carol Hall]: Thank you, mister chair. I'll be quick. And, basically, my question goes to a little bit of it is connected to recruitment. And I know we struggled for many years when we were having really mass retirements during all the, police bills that, this legislature passed. My question goes to highway safety. So as a legislature, most of us can agree, I think, that our biggest complaints from our constituency is the highway safety and how difficult it is to get down the highways safely because there are absolutely crazy drivers. And I think all of us can agree over the course of many years, it's just steadily gotten worse. So my question is, with the number of troopers that you actually have on hand commissioner are you finding that highway enforcement is becoming easier for you or is it more challenging at this point? I mean we all travel the highways, right? And again, that's where my complaints come. 91 to Springfield is just like a racetrack and I'm gonna blame the Massachusetts residents for that. But I think we all know some of them are from Connecticut. So if you could talk a little bit about specifically highway safety and your numbers of troopers that you need to cover those highways.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Representative, thank you for that question. More troopers would result in higher visibility on our highways. More troopers would result in higher visibility. If we're able to so those troopers that are assigned to the different barracks, when you think about troop h in Hartford and troop g in Bridgeport, those are primarily highway troops. The the more troopers we could assign to those barracks means there's more troopers assigned to stretches of highways that they patrol. Not only to do proactive, highway enforcement, but also so that they they're lit up and they're serving as a deterrent for those individuals who would think about driving recklessly or speeding. So that that's primarily what I was what I was getting to when I was talking about increasing the numbers. I didn't mention it, earlier, but I'm glad you asked that question because more troopers means more visibility. I don't want to have more troopers so that we can have more troopers inside. I want them outside on the road enforcing the law.

[Representative Carol Hall]: I I appreciate that. I really do. I think as far as the residents across the state, they would love to see more troopers on those highways. And I can tell you it it's truly like a racetrack over the last from the ten years I've been commuting to Hartford for the legislature. It's just you can see a drastic change in folks' driving habits. And I think that is in direct correlation of us losing our troopers and our numbers going down. So I certainly support you beefing your numbers up to that 1,300 number. I think you you really need it. And, I really thank you for all your hard work and all your men and women that, work so hard for the citizens of Connecticut. So thank you. Thank you, mister

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: chair. Thank you, representative. We'll have representative Ganga, followed by representative Palello, followed by representative Shaikh. Thanks.

[Representative Henry Genga]: Thank you. Thank you for your commission commissioner for your testimony, and it's very interesting and certainly of a top priority. Some of my questions have been answered already regarding need, but would you normally stating a a need of 1,200, so we're doing the the job that we should be doing for public safety all around and with the heightened increase in security that's been going around. How do you plan or do you have a plan specifically to reach this goal of 1,200? I heard you say you have recruits of, well, three classes a year, a thousand applicants. Do you have a plan to significantly reduce and reach incrementally that goal of 1,200?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: So, a written strategy? No. We are we're working on our study first and foremost. We want our approach to be informed. That's why I said earlier that based on my analysis having been here for three years and seeing the needs, any plan should begin with data, calls for service data. We have to factor in the contract. They have time off. We have to factor in a number of different things. So, no, we don't have a written plan, but that is my goal to have a strategy, something that we can all look at and agree to. This is where we are, and this is what where where we need to be. And these are the steps that we're going to to take to achieve success. Keeping with the chair's directive, I'll ask just one more question.

[Representative Henry Genga]: With your plan and your goal, do you have the administrative support?

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: We have the administrative support. We have we are working very closely with our partners and in OLR and DAS and the governor's office. I'm pretty proud of the relationships that we've established, and I'm also very heartened by the level of support that we are getting.

[Representative Henry Genga]: Thank you. I just heard these things over the years. And I remember when we had a great number of police, state police officer, and I remember when we had a reduction. K. So, yeah, we cut down some expenses, but we got whacked by overtime. When was a couple of years, we had control over the overtime, really, because management was put on the spot by the legislature and the Office of Fiscal Analysis, which is bipartisan. So I ask you these questions with all good intent, and I'm very very pleased to hear what you're saying. And just wanna see the real world because there's an old expression in the newsroom. The more things change, the more they stay the same. We wanna avoid that. Thank you.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Thank you, sir.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. And the more things stay the same, the more we want them to change. Thank you. Representative Palelio.

[Representative Al Paolillo Jr.]: Thank you. Thank you, commissioner, for being here. Thank you for your vision and and your leadership, certainly, and the information that you're sharing with us today on so many topics. You just mentioned contract, and this legislature last year approved a contract well deserved for the men and women, of your department, the troopers, looking at pay, looking at compensation. Can you talk about you just mentioned the classes that you have and what your plans are between 2530 with that contract being inked and and signed last year, how that affects and how that has impacted your recruitment efforts, your retention efforts, and in terms of your planning with the numbers that you're articulating today in terms of size, in terms of a force, how that is helpful or or not helpful in terms of your overall recruiting, how that those campaigns go, and and what the reaction is from the pool of applicants that you have.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: That's a lot, rep.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Go ahead.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: No. But the so, you know, today, as I shared, we have 922 troopers. In 2023, we graduated 68 new troopers. Two classes total 68. In 2024, we had one class, 24 troopers. 2025, we graduated 59 troopers. The contract and I I read the contract a few times. The contract that the Connecticut State Police has is a darn good one. It's a darn good one. However, there are a lot of other darn good contracts that are out there right now too. So we're competing. We're competing. So they have just begun contract negotiations again. So they're they're in there with OLR again, negotiating a contract. And I think that, you know, as good as the contract that they currently have is, I think success is never final. So we're gonna have to look around at what others are doing, and we're gonna have to put our our folks in a position to compete. In terms of our our recruitment strategy, we're getting the numbers in. I I think that their approach going to different colleges, universities, recruiting from the military, Everybody else is doing that as well. I think we need to continue doing that, but at the same time, be more targeted in terms of how we're swimming further upstream earlier. Cadet programs, programs where there's a pipeline into the Connecticut State Police. The one of the concerns I have is even with the cadet program after they age out age 18, they're gonna have to go and work somewhere. So how can we incentivize, monetarily, young people to stay connected in a on a police adjacent role to the state police while they're waiting to become the age 21 where they could actually go to the academy? I think we need to do that. We need to be more intentional about that. There's other departments that have done that. Massachusetts State Police has done that. That's when we think about different innovative ideas around the country and how different departments have had to reinvent themselves or innovate through this, that is one of the things that they're doing. So, you know, the OLR has been really, really good to us. I think the contract they have is great, but they're going in again, and they're gonna have to they're gonna have to negotiate again and and as they should. But I I think that, you know, when people are making decisions about where they want to attach their their time and their talent and their family name, they're looking at everything. They're looking at everything from salary to medical benefits to retirement and to things that we we we talked about earlier, like housing, childcare, and tuition reimbursement or tuition relief. So all of those different things matter. I will share with you, and and the colonel Lachman knows this. They're working their butts off, but I wanna see the numbers of troopers increase per class. We're not gonna get too far with 25 to 30 people in a class. We need to get up to the forties and fifties and sixties again. Now that's hard. That's hard. I'm I'm but I'm setting the bar high because I know that if we if we can achieve that, then we're gonna be successful. So I'm not gonna set the bar low and say, okay. We hit our mark. No. We're gonna aim high.

[Representative Al Paolillo Jr.]: Thank you, and I apologize for that long question. Sometimes the chair has a way of motivating you to to limit the questions here, so to speak. So certainly point well taken from the chair. But just to follow-up, because compensation is so important and and benefits and retirement for all of our public safety, for police and fire and first responders, EMS across the board, it's important, and that's been in front of this committee, for quite some time, the last several sessions. It helps complement five zero four six. One without the other is not going to work, and and so that attention to compensation, that attention to benefits, and to retirement are are are so important across the board. I guess maybe I'll ask the question this way, the pool of applicants in the last year or two compared to four or five years ago before you coming into your role. And once you get that thousand applicants, like you said, then what is the breakdown from a thousand to then getting folks graduated through the academy? Those will be my my final two follow-up questions, and I appreciate.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Rep. Payload, the one question I I'm not prepared to answer. We have that information. We have that data, and we can get that to you.

[Representative Al Paolillo Jr.]: Will be perfect. Okay. Thank you, sir. Great.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, representative.

[Representative Shaikh]: Mister chairman. Good afternoon, commissioner. It's good to see you. I guess more of a comment because I appreciate you sharing with the committee, the general public, really the efforts that are being made to try and figure out how to better bolster the recruitment and retention that your division deals with on a daily basis of trying to keep the state of Connecticut safe. So I appreciate that.

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: Thank you.

[Representative Shaikh]: You know, roughly, it's almost 400 positions. We're short of the goal of 1,300. And when I hear some of my colleagues reference, you know, the glaring overtime that our workers are accruing and that that's weighing on, obviously, the finance piece of what it is that you have to deal with. You know, whether I'm in here or I'm over in my other committee, which is happening right now, labor and public employees, we're not robots. So the need to have personnel, and as you said, having if we were able to, to have more visibility on our highways to keep our highways more safe, That says to me that it's not cameras that are going to be able to keep the people of Connecticut more safe. It's personnel. It's trained professional personnel. So whatever the number is, which is the overtime, yes, that is an issue. But the bigger issue is trying to actually take care of the staff that you have. And to your point, you said with how many staff you currently have, that includes not just vacation time, but sick time, mental health time, all of those things that are critical in order to keep a workforce healthy. So I I appreciate, the direction that you're currently leading the charge on, with trying to collect the data so that we don't have these anecdotal, comments and then also being considerate of the very hard work that our public safety personnel, whether it's our state troopers, police, fire, EMS, indoors. And to your point, I I work in health care. So, there is I think it's common now, and it was common before. I don't I just don't think it was talked about as regularly where people have ideas of what they want to do as a professional career. But until those young people and sometimes it's a second career that people are going into. They actually, you know, get into the trenches as we refer to it. People change their minds, and that's okay. But but to be able to, absorb and then truly take care of the staff that we currently have, I think, is what I'm hearing from you, to make sure that we're able to keep who we have and to make sure that they stay, for a long, you know, good amount of time. So I just wanted to give a quick comment about that, and I appreciate all the work and everyone in this room does. Thank you.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you so much. Commissioner, we appreciate you for joining us today, and, thank you for your time.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: At this time, we'll have, general Francis Yvonne to come forward, from Connecticut military department. I also just wanted to, gingerly remind, committee members, that question should be pertinent to what's in the bill. And so if we can do that, I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

[Major General Francis J. Evon Jr., Adjutant General, Connecticut Military Department]: Good afternoon, committee co chairs, senator Gaston, representative Boyd, vice chairs, ranking members, and distinguished members of the Public Safety and Security Committee. As mentioned, I'm, Fran Yvonne, commissioner and adjutant general of the Connecticut military department. Thank you for the opportunity today to testify in support of house bill fifty four zero six. I'd like to thank the committee for bringing this bill forward and in support of the governor's bill. Ostensibly, there's a little different twist on this one. Ostensibly, this bill is designed to bolster the recruiting efforts of police and fire, which the National Guard, your Connecticut home team, works very closely with throughout Connecticut. To that end, this legislation will be highly effective and impactful if passed. The bill essentially adds police and fire to an existing tuition waiver enjoyed by members of the Connecticut National Guard, and this tuition waiver has been very successful and the cornerstone of our recruiting and retention efforts. If you navigate to our website, if you see one of our school buses pass by or our buses pass by, you'll see our pitch free tuition at state public colleges. When the legislature passed the tuition waiver in 1982, it made them the most impactful improvement to the Connecticut National Guard since its reorganization after World War two. In fact, as we sit here today, my counterparts in other states are trying to get legislation passed in with their legislature for tuition and fees for their members as well. Again, it's been a huge recruiting tool over the years. Unfortunately, though, this legislation, previous legislation has passed in 1982 left a glaring flaw that the effects which would not be obvious until years later. That flaw is the requirement that soldiers and airmen in the in the Connecticut National Guard must still pay mandatory student fees. These fees are not currently included in the tuition waiver as currently written. So if you compare fees and mandatory fees with tuition, over time it has grown. And one example is at Eastern Connecticut, basically, the tuition and the fees are almost equal. So very near and dear to our soldiers and airmen as they navigate the education and higher education. So as a percentage, the value of the Connecticut National Guard tuition waiver has never been higher, but the real cost of the uncovered mandatory fees has left many guardsmen unable to afford higher education. This means that the benefit of tuition free college for guardsmen is no longer a functional reality, so we thank the governor's announcement of support for this legislation combined with the support of this committee. You have an opportunity to support some of the most impactful legislation for Connecticut's home team again since the creation of the tuition waiver in 1982. Additionally, police and fire departments will realize in some the same thing that we have over time. With recruiting efforts, we do believe it's been a great incentive to offer to our members. So the department has made recommendations to the proponent on small changes to language that will clearly include fees in the waiver in order to better implement the stated intent of the bill. You'll find further details in my further excuse me, in my written testimony, and I'm answered here happy to answer any questions you may have. So thank you again for this opportunity.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Co chair Boyd.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: General, thank you for for your testimony and your outreach and your team as well. It's not very often we have you in front of the the public safety committee. As we're looking at the whole recruitment and retention for police and fire, fire, it's not all that different than the the the same folks we're targeting for the for the guard and for military service. Is is there some ways that, you know, we could perhaps collaborate across the board and somebody who may be a great volunteer firefighter also would be a great fit for the guard and set age demographic of trying to get those those high school students to cross over and either make it their career or to volunteer. Just quick thoughts on on areas we may be able to collect.

[Major General Francis J. Evon Jr., Adjutant General, Connecticut Military Department]: No. Ab absolutely. I mean, we work hand in glove with the Connecticut State Police and with local police departments. We have a program that we teach in Niantic, Connecticut, basically, the military police course, and all of the departments are invited to the graduation so they can solicit a job from our candidates, part time, you know, their military function as a police officer, and we offer those departments to come to graduations so that they can offer opportunities that they have in their respective towns or with the state police. I also jotted a note down from commissioner Higgins that 18 to 21 year old, I think we can be a fix there. So a young high school student in Connecticut can join the Connecticut National Guard at 17 with his parents endorsement or at 18. They can go and get trained as a military policeman and then transition like we do through post. Many of the chiefs here today will talk to you about how they transition our members or active duty military policemen to their departments based on some statutes that we have had discussed and previously passed. So definitely an opportunity. Absolutely.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. And if we can fill a few buckets while we do this, that's all the best. Absolutely, sir. Thank

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: you. Representative DGO of Ancarlo.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Thank you, general. I sit here amazed. My son was in the garden and went to Eastern, and, we were expecting, free tuition. So we, found out that there was a $5,000 in state, fee, for living in state. I guess we had to pay a fee. Is that the fees that you're trying to get rid of when you advertise? Yes, sir. Free tuition, it's actually it is free tuition?

[Major General Francis J. Evon Jr., Adjutant General, Connecticut Military Department]: Okay. It is free tuition, and we're this the bill would inherently add the fees as well and be a solution to what you experienced.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: And just for the record, what other fees are there besides is that just the only one, the in state fee that you're talking about, or is there other

[Major General Francis J. Evon Jr., Adjutant General, Connecticut Military Department]: There are other fees as well. I don't have a breakdown, but we can get them for you.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Okay. Awesome. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Any additional questions, comments from members of the committee? Alright. Seeing none, thank you so much, general, for joining us on today. Have a safe trip out there. At this time, we'll, call numbers 4 through 6. The commissioner Michelle Gilman from department of administrative services accompanied by Omari Vasquez, the state building inspector, and Laurie Volkert, Department of Administrative Services, State Fire Marshal. Thank you all so much for joining us.

[Commissioner Michelle Gilman, Department of Administrative Services (DAS)]: Good afternoon. Great to see you all. I'm Michelle Gilman, commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services. A pleasure to be, before the public service public, safety and security committee. Thank you so much. By way of introduction, I do want to, acknowledge Lori Volker who's our State Fire Marshall and Omeris Vasquez, our State Building Inspector and thought by coming up here today together we would lend to your efficiency as well. So I hope that works for all of you. So again, Senator Gaston, Representative Boyd, Senator Ciccarella, Representative Howard, and members of the committee, thank you again for giving us the opportunity to testify in support of two bills before you today. One has much interest before you today, certainly with House Bill fifty forty six, an act supporting firefighter and police officer recruitment and retention. This bill obviously helps would would certainly help to provide numerous incentives including tuition waivers for undergraduate and graduate programs at Connecticut State Community College, the Connecticut State University System, and the University of Connecticut, as well as mortgage assistance programs administered by CHFA. We are really proud to support this bill at DAS given our role with the Office of the State Fire Marshall and certainly working with our fire service and police professionals across the state. We're really again very proud that the governor has moved forward this legislation and really hope that the committee will continue to move this bill forward throughout session. We think it has numerable benefits for our communities and other partners throughout the state and are happy to lend any support that we can throughout discussions throughout the upcoming session. Given our role with OSFM, we do wanna point out as well that not only are there careers in fire suppression, which are of course extremely important in the fire service and many other, categories within the fire service, but for us, fire inspectors, fire marshals, and other, professional categories are vitally important to consider in the fire service. And I want to acknowledge Lori Volkert's role in looking at different pathways for those professions. So again, happy to be a resource as this bill moves forward through the course of session. The second bill we want to testify on is the DAS agency bill, which is Senate Bill two seventy seven, an act implementing the Department of Administrative Services recommendations regarding fire marshal qualifications, burn injury reports, and state building code provisions relating to accessibility. So there are a number of provisions in this bill. I certainly will not go through all of the different provisions, but I do want to highlight a few. Section one of the bill offers some potential changes regarding fire marshal qualifications and pathways for certification. We've had a number of conversations with our fire service partners regarding our proposal around these certification pathways. We recognize that there are a number of considerations for our local partners in the fire service in particular around collective bargaining. Each communities individual programs around certifications and also their different staffing models. And so we have put forward a number of considerations to address the various pathway certifications that can be considered for training and we really look forward to working with the Committee and our partners to address any concerns or potential opportunities here as we look towards our own regulations over the coming years and also to facilitating a more feasible pathway that works for both the state and our local partners on this moving forward. Also, when we look at section two of our bill, we are looking to codify codify, excuse me, the current practice of allowing the state fire marshal to issue official interpretations of the state fire code, just like our state building inspector can for the state building code. So hoping that this is looked upon as really a technical correction but happy to take any questions on that moving forward as well. Section three and seven of the bill make changes to the burn injury report that is sent to the state fire marshal. This isn't a report that we work collaboratively with the Department of Public Health. What we have found since this report has become part of the OSFM responsibility is that we are receiving public health data or private health information. And so working with DPH, we have come to a resolution collaboratively with them where DPH would send us their data through an annual report to OSFM. And then we would from there provide a more consistent and accurate source for the reporting that is required under this report. Section four through seven of the bill eliminates an obsolete provision regarding the state building code and some technicalities around accessibility. We do now account for ADA accommodations and accessibility in the state building code as we move forward and adopt new code versions every three years. And so previous in previous years, those accessibility standards, we worked with the Office of Protection and Advocacy, which no longer exists, and then worked with other offices as well around accessibility provisions. But again, that's all now accommodated through the normal code process. So we believe that this is an absolute provision as noted. So that's as quick a summary as I've been able to provide. But as I noted, we're happy to answer any questions. Again, I'll refer to or defer to Laurie and to Omeris on fire marshal and, building inspector questions. Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Co chair Boyd.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you for, appearing today and always being a collaborative partner and and all the work that we're trying to do. Just a quick question on the official interpretation. If you could just kinda walk through what an example might there be and what its kinda legally binding status is.

[Laurie Volkert, State Fire Marshal (DAS/OSFM)]: Sure. Absolutely. Thank you very much. So the interpretation is a authorization that I already have for the state fire prevention code and, AMERIS has for the state building code. And so this is closing that loop for the fire safety code, to for me to officially interpret. And this is when there's a question where there's, some nuance in the fire code. Codes are not always written to be, accessible or easily understandable to lay folks. And so when there's some question or some gray area in the code, it gives us the ability to work with our local leaders, to come up and do research on our own to put together, an official determination if the local developers and the code officials can't come to an agreement.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: So does it typically come up in almost like an appeal of something from the local or a a question that comes up that there they should just is that the path, or is it usually, like, from the outside?

[Laurie Volkert, State Fire Marshal (DAS/OSFM)]: It it can come from either the local fire marshal or from designers and saying that they're working on a project and they've come to a code section that they're not sure how to interpret or how to meet the intent of that section of the code. And it can be as informal as a phone call or, you know, send in an email. And then we're able to make that determination whether it's project specific or if this is an official interpretation that applies throughout the state. And then those are published on the throughout the state, and then those are published on the state website.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: We we certainly have empathy for intent as we're always running legislation, and sometimes our agencies don't carry it out the way, we intend. So but, we appreciate that.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, representative DiCaprio online and then followed by representative Howard.

[Representative DiCaprio (remote)]: Thank you, mister chair, and, thank you, commissioner. It's great to see you there. Unfortunately, I'm here and not there. I was there earlier, but I had to come back, for reasons I won't get into. But as far as the fire marshal qualifications, can you just elaborate on what the, you know, what the challenges are there and, you know, and sort of the new pathway that we're talking about?

[Commissioner Michelle Gilman, Department of Administrative Services (DAS)]: Ex absolutely. Good to see you as well, representative. So I'll ask state marshal Lori Volker to provide a little more context in detail around the certification pathway. Lori?

[Laurie Volkert, State Fire Marshal (DAS/OSFM)]: Right now, we have a number of different positions that are outlined in our regulations, but they have kind of collapsed in over the course of many years into a single pre certification class, and so whether someone is entering the field as an entry level inspector or is being appointed as a fire marshal for a community, they're receiving the same level of training and have the same, prequalifications to get into that training. And so recognizing that this is putting a very heavy burden on those who are interested in sticking their toes in the water and seeing if the code official path is the right path for them career wise and also for communities who are looking to hire entry level inspectors, reducing some of the requirements for those, making that an easier training to obtain, and then providing a career pathway that'll work through, build on previous knowledge, skills, and abilities, and, work their way up to provide better training and, more distinct roles through it that more closely matches, professional standards that are adopted nationwide.

[Representative DiCaprio (remote)]: Okay. Thank you very much for that. I appreciate that. And, thank you again for coming in, and thank you, mister chair. Thank you, representative Howard.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you, mister chairman. Laurie, do you get the, locating section three of the bill. When you get these reports now, regarding injuries or deaths from fireworks, explosives, etcetera Well, you do get that now. Right? Or right. So do you get the manner as well? Like, in other words, you get the cause, right, fireworks, explosive, but do you get the manner as if it was it was intentional? Was it accidental? Was it self inflicted on purpose? Was it self inflicted accidental? Do you get that data as well for injuries? And I imagine you get that from deaths, from death certificate. But what about for injuries?

[Laurie Volkert, State Fire Marshal (DAS/OSFM)]: I I would have to look at refamiliarize myself with the form. I can get back to you offline. It doesn't jump out in my head with that. But I do know that the reports that we're getting directly from healthcare providers, are few and far between. And so some, like the Bridgeport Burn Center, is very good about sending those in. Other hospitals, if a burn is one of many injuries that someone has experienced, it's not always top of mind for them to submit that report. And so looking at the difference between the reports that we've received in the office versus what DPH has through their collection their data collection process. We're looking at, you know, a 100 to a 150 reports coming into my office versus about a thousand, burn injuries a year being reported into DPH. So we're recognizing that there is a large a significant number that we're not receiving, and they're also able to get much more precise data in terms of the mechanism of injury, the type of injury, the extent. So we're gonna get better data and cleaner data from this report.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: So you so you going forward, if this bill were to pass, you would get that that piece of data as far as the manner. If it was intentional, accidental, you anticipate that you would get that? The reason I asked is because I when we do these things, that data inevitably ends up in this room for making policies or in this building. Right? And I you know, regardless where anybody feels on fireworks or explosives, etcetera, and we have bills for that. But the I I I think it's important to know, you know, things were done on purpose, on accident, etcetera. So your interpretation of this language is that you'll be getting that?

[Laurie Volkert, State Fire Marshal (DAS/OSFM)]: I would have to check with DPH to check their reporting requirements, but I can get back to you offline

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: on that. And and if it's possible and if they if if DPH needs changes in the legislation to be able to do that, if you could let us know so we can discuss if that would be appropriate. Thank you. And then, commissioner, the recruitment bill, EMS is not included as as you all know. I don't know you can comment if you want, but I'm not sure if that was done, you know, accidentally because, you know, a lot of fire departments include EMS as well and perhaps it was an oversight. Mhmm. What's your opinion on adding EMS to to this bill?

[Commissioner Michelle Gilman, Department of Administrative Services (DAS)]: I would really have to defer to the governor's office, you know, and and OPM who really took the lead on drafting the bill. But I'm certain that they would be very open to those conversations moving forward. We're not only with the committee, but certainly with fire, EMS, and the police moving forward on various nuances to the bill, language changes, and others.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Sure. Understood. And then the only the other question that I have, and I probably asked this a couple times today with some others, the look. I I I appreciate the governor's office and the effort to recruit police officers and firefighters in the state. I'll add EMS to that if we can get them added in. The concern that I have, and if you're comfortable answering if you go and defer somebody else, that's fine. The way the bill is drafted, it takes existing police officers who are not may not quite be committed to their pension yet. So I think, you know, I speak for a lot of law enforcement officers who are at the end of their career. They're they're they're there because they if they leave, it costs them 7 figures. Right? So that's why they're there. I'm concerned that the way this is drafted may create an opportunity where we're creating a pathway for people out of the profession. Right? So you take a police officer and he left now. There was one sitting here a few moments ago who gets hired by a police department, uses that time to go to school, and uses that education to get out of the profession. Is there a concern there?

[Commissioner Michelle Gilman, Department of Administrative Services (DAS)]: You know, again, I would defer to the subject matter experts on the line, both within the departments across the state. Certainly, we may be able to offer some guidance from DIS in terms of how we've worked those incentives with state employees and then requirements around job retention and how you work that through. But I think really working with local departments, working with the governor's office on what could be effective steps in terms of retaining that employee, I imagine those conversations will happen over the course of the legislative session.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Do we do so elsewhere in the state, I know that there's municipal contracts where when they pay for education, there's a there's a retention requirement. Right? So we paid for your degree. You have to give us five years. You owe us money back. You know, it's more complex than that. But Mhmm. Does that have is there is that existence elsewhere in the state with state employees? I would have Some sort of provisions?

[Commissioner Michelle Gilman, Department of Administrative Services (DAS)]: Yeah. I would have to look at specific contracts to understand how those are derived, but that is very possible for some of our contracts where there are certain incentives around tuition and tuition reimbursement and other programs. But happy to look into that and get you some specific information, with our OLR partners as well. Okay.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you. Thank you, miss Cherry. Absolutely.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Any additional questions from, members of the committee? I believe that you were attempting to say something. Sorry, commissioner. You might continue.

[Commissioner Michelle Gilman, Department of Administrative Services (DAS)]: Just say when it comes to some of the data conversations as well, I just wanna also let you all know that Laurie is working very closely with our team and OPM and and their data team to look at different datasets and where we can promote those on the open data portal as well so that they're accessible not only for our legislative stakeholders, but also members of the public, members of the fire service, our public health professionals, and others. So continue to look at our datasets and where we can be transparent in terms of posting those datasets in a transparent but appropriate way. So look for more of that to come, and we're happy to share those efforts moving forward as well.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you. Thank you for doing that. I appreciate

[Commissioner Michelle Gilman, Department of Administrative Services (DAS)]: it. Absolutely.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. I don't see any more questions online or anyone else at the around the circle. So thank you for joining us today, and be safe out on the roads. Yeah. Thank you. This must be a great indication. It must be a snowstorm or something that we're snowed in. More members just joined. Welcome. Senator Perello, please come forward. Great to see you, sir. Also, could you please state your name for the record and as well as who's with you? I appreciate it.

[Representative Jason Perillo]: Absolutely. Rep representative. Senator Perillo. I'm here with chief Kyle Kelly of Naugatuck Ambulance. I don't represent Naugatuck, but chief Kelly is a constituent, and I wanna make sure he got up here and and shared a few words. You know, you know, senator, representative Boyd, representative Howard, I believe, senator Ciccarella is is online. I just have two bills I'd like to speak about, and I'm gonna do it very, very briefly. I know you have a busy day and people wanna get home. But first is five zero four six, the bill on retention and recruitment for fire and police. Needless to say, anything we can do for our public safety workers, for our first responders, we ought to be doing. I think this is an great example of how we as state of Connecticut can take a leadership role in doing that. And on top of that, I wanna thank committee leadership for being open to the inclusion of EMS providers. You know, when you look across the state and you look at the volume of calls individuals respond to you know, I'll take you know, town of Stratford's a great example. You know, the fire department goes to so many medical calls, but they go to those calls alongside EMS professionals. And, you know, when you look at the state of Connecticut, there are approximately 21,000, you know, EMS professionals. You know, about 8,000 of them are active, and, you know, they have they have to be active for more than five years. So when you start to look at the actual cost of including EMS, it's actually not as high as one might think. And, of course, that's a decision for for another committee. But, I think we would be remiss if we, as a, legislature did not include, you know, these folks in our EMS community who are such vital providers of care to our residents and especially an an aging state with an aging population. You know, chief, I don't know if you wanna add to that.

[Unidentified committee/staff interjection]: Thank you, Kyle Kelly from, Naugus of King Mills. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I 100% support the bill, on behalf of the fire department and the police officers in the state of Connecticut. And like senator Perillo said, we too, as EMS providers, are out there on the front lines day and day, working long out long hours, trying to save lives as best we can, working with our our partners, out there. And we wanna the opportunity to, be included there if we can.

[Chief Kyle Kelly, Naugatuck Ambulance]: If this is the time, fantastic. If it's not, hopefully, there'll be there'll be another time. If there's an avenue for EMS providers to be in in in, involved in this bill, then that'd be fantastic. So I appreciate the opportunity.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Anybody from the committee have any comments you like to make or anybody online? Alright. Representative Sheikh.

[Representative Shaikh]: Thank you, mister chairman. Good afternoon, senator.

[Representative Jason Perillo]: Hi, representative.

[Representative Shaikh]: Thank you for being here. I just wanna say thank you for coming and advocating. I know senator Perillo and I were in a local meeting. Was it yesterday? I don't know. I did that, and then I went to work right after. So I'm like, oh, but I just want to make sure that for everyone in this room and then the general public, you know, the the cries and and requests that many of us in the legislature have received from EMS, I think has been felt throughout the building. And we are, and I appreciate again you coming and testifying and hearing from our very important essential workers, right, of what it is that you do and what you need, which is more support. So whether we're talking about police, fire, EMS, we need to do more, and we need to do better. So I hope that we're able to address this this short session to figure out a pathway forward, and look forward to working with all of our colleagues to figure out how we can do that to better support everyone within public safety. Thank you.

[Representative Jason Perillo]: Thank you, representative.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, representative Howard.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you, mister chairman. Senator, you know, this as you heard me ask earlier, I I think EMS is is an issue. And and one of our colleagues said earlier that, you know, there's a lot of recruitment retention issues we've dealt with in education for years. This is the public safety aspect of it to me is paramount, and EMS needs to be included. I think they need to be taken a little bit differently. I've always felt, and I'm I'm asking you because I know that you have experience in this, that relevant to the public service, public safety community, EMS is grossly underpaid. Is that still I mean, I haven't looked at EMS contracts in quite a while. Is EMS or the private municipal EMS that are separate from the fire department. Right? Are they still paid significantly less than what would be a similar salary for a fire or police or either one of you if you could? I haven't looked at it

[Representative Jason Perillo]: in a bit, but Yeah. Chief Kelly may be able to put some color on this, but by and large, across the industry, that's an accurate statement representative, EMS providers, particularly those that are working in the, private sector that aren't necessarily municipal employees are are paid less than other first responders.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Yeah. Alright. I thank you. I mean, it was, you know, twenty five years ago, I when I was in EMS, I I ended up in police work for for several reasons, but one of the main ones was a massive price you know, salary gap. And I'm just curious if that was the issue and if that's something we can look at. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. I did have a, question, for you. I am in total support of this, and I do think that we should be doing more. I have had those conversations as well with, folks in Stratford and Bridgeport who are m EMS saying, hey. Well, what about us? And then I got calls from folks from the Department of Corrections. Hey, well, what about us? And then I got calls from nine one one operators. Hey, well, what about us? And so do you think that potentially, this opens the floodgates for everyone who's sort of serving in that first responder capacity to say, we need to do more, or it seems as if you're treating some, like they are with a civil spoon and others as if they're not. And so do you think that may have the potential, to create a mass exodus in some other critical areas that we need because we're not paying close attention to those needs as well and sort of what's the the end game there? How do we solve for that?

[Representative Jason Perillo]: Yeah. So so if the question is, does opening this to EMS open the floodgates to other, folks in the public safety field, I I hope it does. I hope it does. Because when you talk about telecommunicators, that's a great example. Correction's another great example. These are folks doing very important work. Talk about being forward facing. You know, you look at a telecommunicator, for example, and, you know, they may not be providing a hands on care, but they're on the phone with the family. You know, corrections might might be one of the toughest jobs in the state of Connecticut. So these are the kind of folks that we can help, who we can reward, and where we can make the job a little bit more appealing.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. I appreciate it. Any, additional questions, comments from members of the committee saying, thank you all so much. Oh, one more comment from you.

[Representative Jason Perillo]: Actually, senator, I I have a second bill. If you don't mind, I'll be very, very brief, and I wanna thank the committee for for taking it up because it's a bill I've I've focused on for a long time. And, by the way, chief Kelly's presence here is should not be seen as an endorsement of my support for tobacco bars. But a number of years with the help of actually, at the time, the general law committee, we created a situation. We changed a difficult situation in that. There was one tobacco bar in the state of Connecticut. It was in New Haven. And a previous law change back in, I wanna say, 2002, 2003 actually, 2003 made it such that there could be no additional tobacco bars. And originally, a constituent came to me and said, hey. That that's really not fair. I wanna open one too. No. Many years went by, and that individual has come and gone. But it still was not really fair that there could only be one. And a number of years ago, we created the opportunity for the for additional tobacco bars in towns, in cities of greater than 80,000 people. And a number of years have gone by. And in those years, only two additional tobacco bars have opened. And, obviously, our the hope of the committee and the legislature back then was that it would be more of an opportunity. So with the bill before you does it, 02/28, would change that threshold from 80 a population of 80,000 with population of 40,000, and that's only 17 additional towns. So I I appreciate that the committee raised it. Is this not a bill that's before this committee?

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: I am looking. I don't believe so. You know what?

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: It's back in sorry to hop in here. It's gonna be in general law still.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: It's for general law. Thanks. Well Appreciate it.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: We appreciate your testimony anyway. But

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: we're gonna work on that for you there, senator, as well.

[Representative Jason Perillo]: Thank you, senator. Senator Chikorro, but you wouldn't think so. Beautiful. I'm thoroughly embarrassed, but

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you.

[Representative Jason Perillo]: Thanks for indulging.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: I was trying to cut you off before, and you said you wanted to do it. So go ahead.

[Representative Jason Perillo]: Me to shut up.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: So Oh, no. I wanted to hear you. At any rate, thank you so much for joining, and safe travels on the road if you're out on

[Representative Jason Perillo]: the road.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: You all.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. The next guest we have is David Genetti from Post University, the program chair, who's online. So we'll be bringing you up shortly. Thank thank you.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: David, you can begin your testimony.

[David Genetti, Program Chair, Emergency Management & Homeland Security, Post University]: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, co chairs Gaston and Boyd, ranking members Ciccarella and Howard, and distinguished members of the public safety and security committee. My name is David Genetti. I am the program chair of the emergency management and homeland security program at Post University. The thirty years of law enforcement experience, I work closely with our criminal justice program, our master of public administration program faculty to help align our programs with the needs of current and future first responders. I wanna clearly state that I support HB fifty forty six with one important amendment, and that is to extend tuition assistance to Connecticut's privately owned and accredited colleges and universities. My own law enforcement career shows why this matters as my higher education journey was one of choice. In 1990, I earned an associate's degree in criminal justice from then Manitoba Community College. I know I'm dating myself there. I chose Manitowoc because it was affordable and close by. In 1992, I fulfilled a lifelong dream of joining the Waterbury Police Department where I made my career. As a mid career officer, I attended Post University to pursue a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. I chose Post because of its flexible schedules, scholar practitioner faculty, and convenient location. Later seeking a master's degree for advancement, I chose the University of New Haven, another privately owned and accredited Connecticut University with practitioner led and flexible class schedules. Again, this was a matter of choice for me. Ultimately, those degrees helped me earn the rank of assistant deputy chief. After retiring from Waterbury, I joined post university as a full time faculty member. I had been an adjunct for a few years prior. At post our programs are developed with working first responders in mind. Specifically, our online flexible degree pathways let first responders complete courses around shift work, rotating days off, callbacks and family caregiving. As written, HB 5,046 offers tuition assistance for degrees at Connecticut's public institutions only. This limited choice may undercut recruitment and retention, the very goals of HB 5,046. I ask that you consider an amendment to allow tuition assistance for privately owned and accredited Connecticut colleges and universities, even if that assistance is capped at the public school rate. Choice helped me advance and better serve my community. Let's give today's career police officers and firefighters that same choice. I thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Representative DG Ovoncarlow.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Hi. Dave, thanks, yeah, for your testimony today. Are you off top of your head, would you know how many active police officers or firefighters you have at Post University?

[David Genetti, Program Chair, Emergency Management & Homeland Security, Post University]: Thank you for that question, representative. It was good to see, one of my former colleagues from Waterbury PD. So I wanna be very accurate. We only have numbers for those who self identify their their employment status. And currently, we have about a 112 who identify voluntarily identify their employment as a police officer or firefighter. However, that number is much likely a larger because we have many military students who use their post nine eleven tuition assistance and wouldn't necessarily self report their their employment as either a police officer or firefighter. So at least a 112, probably many more. Hope that helps.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: And and that does it also. With talking to your administrators, your leaders, do you have any ideas? I I I don't know. Regarding if if if the tuition can't be covered, tax breaks, is there anything you guys are thinking of that would be helpful to the university?

[David Genetti, Program Chair, Emergency Management & Homeland Security, Post University]: I think the an easy fix to this would be to cap the tuition. If you, this bill does allow for tuition assistance for Connecticut. Connecticut's privately owned and accredited universities and college. I say accredited because that's very important. Most private institutions in Connecticut are accredited by NECHI, which is the Duane Commission of Higher Education. NECHI ensures educational excellence and quality assurance through peer assessments. But an easy fix would be to offer the tuition assistance at the pub to cap it at the public rate. So whatever the tuition assistance for a Connecticut public college or university would be the cap for those attending privately owned colleges or universities in Connecticut.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: So just to that point quick, if we're we may be just waiving, tuition fees for state schools. And if if we can't waive a private and we have to pay a private even capping it, that changes the bill drastically. So I would hope that there's another another way that maybe you guys could work with with us with this bill in order to hopefully include you, include your yourself, the University of New Haven. We know there are a few top schools out there that to maybe help keep the fiscal note on this bill very low. So, obviously, this bill is a work in progress, and we'll keep working together. But if you have any ideas, I ask that you would reach

[David Genetti, Program Chair, Emergency Management & Homeland Security, Post University]: out to us. So thank

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: you. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, representative Gonzales. Okay. I'm so sorry. She I stand to be corrected. Anybody else online that would like to comment? Alright. Seeing none, thank you so much for joining us today, and thank you for your testimony.

[David Genetti, Program Chair, Emergency Management & Homeland Security, Post University]: I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Officer Frank Oh, okay.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Folks, just for clarification, because of the weather, we're gonna be respectful of folks in the room as opposed to remote. So we're gonna get on the in the room list to to get you on the road and then hit folks at a remote towards the end. So Greg Greg Preece will be next. So, Frank, we'll get hit you up after the in room people. Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Chief Priess, good to see you. Chief Priess and company, good to see you.

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: I think I'm being flanked from behind us, sir. Looks good. I'm glad to be here.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Welcome. Everybody, just state your name for the record, please, once you start.

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: Alright. Well, how about if I start? Good afternoon, senator Gassen, rep Boyd, senator Ciccarella, representative Howard, and the public safety and security committee members. My name is Greg Priest. I'm the proud fire chief in West Hartford, Connecticut, the vice president of the Connecticut Career Fire Chiefs Association today, but providing testimony as the chair of the joint council of fire service organizations. And I will let my colleagues introduce themselves who are joining me.

[Chief Bud Myers, Town of Coventry; President, Connecticut Fire Chiefs Association]: My name is Bud Myers. I'm the fire chief of the Town of Coventry and president of the Connecticut Fire Chiefs Association.

[John Carew, Past President, Connecticut City Firefighters Association]: My name is John Carew. I'm past president of the Connecticut City Firefighters Association representing them here today.

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: Outstanding. Well, thank you, gentlemen. So first, in my opinion, after listening to the testimony, really paying attention to some of the things today, we are making tremendous strides in acknowledging the needs and pressures facing Connecticut's fire service. The governor, comptroller Scanlon, rep Boyd, members of this committee, commissioner Higgins, commissioner Gilman, their testimony today. I think that many others are paying attention. Right? But not just attention, they're taking action. And we appreciate that because what you've heard today, in earlier testimony is some very significant data points. A 62.7% rounded up by comptroller to, 63% reduction in volunteer since 2016. A 50% overall reduction in firefighters is also part of his study. These are very concerning pictures to us in the fire service, and they source from data, not just our intuitions and our feelings. So the positive side is is I believe that you are hearing us, and we are very, very appreciative of the support that is being provided because your help is absolutely critical. And even if we're making small steps or big steps, we are making progress. As it pertains to the bills that you see, today, our focus is certainly on, the recruiting and retention of public safety members for rep Howard and. Carlos, thing, I put my blue and my red folders together for you to be able see that. But we are we are strongly in support of the governor's proposed bill that turned into house bill fifty forty six, and we filed written testimony to that effect. Certainly support the languages presented, but we're just asking for your consideration that you make sure that it extends to all firefighters and police officers. The conversation, about EMS, we are supportive of adding our colleagues in, emergency medical services to the bill. We also wanna make sure that you're just pairing this with the logistical support needed to execute on these benefits so that there's an efficiency so that our members are able to actually get these benefits in an effective and efficient manner. We've also heard some of the other conversation. I'll move a little bit off of my remarks a little bit to say I do believe that we are interested in that conversation about how we expand these benefits to all of the different subsets of public safety in different ways. So for example, how would we recruit and retain members who may not need education or may not want education or require mortgage assistance? I appreciated the conversation on childcare. I've appreciated some of the other conversations that have happened and especially that of trying to start those benefits earlier than five years with some sort of follow-up commitment to make sure that they stay in the profession as well. We're very interested in that. So I said our our focus today is house bill five zero four eight certainly is. There are a few other bills in front of you. I just wanted to touch very briefly. We see house bill five two nine one spoke to about the commissioner and requiring contact information for all fire chiefs. We are supportive of that. In terms of, commissioner Gilman's testimony over senate bill two seventy seven, very accurate. We've had some great conversations with the commissioner. We are supportive of the enabling legislation, with the idea that we would then have the opportunity to discuss, what those changes to fire marshal certification would be, and we would point you to the fire marshal training council and probably a working group over the next, year or so so that we can help navigate those changes prior to being made. In terms of, house bill five four zero four and senate bill three seventy, both our bills haven't been talked about today. The joint council has been very supportive of increasing instructor rates of pay and making sure that the administrative areas around in in fire service instructors are being met. So I'm not usually known for the brevity of my remarks, but that is it. So I really appreciate the opportunity to be up here with my colleagues, and my peers from law enforcement who are in the room, and I would look forward to answering any questions you may have of me.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Any questions, comments from members of the committee? Representative Howard.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Chief, let me first say to your comment that you're asking for government to be effective and efficient. Given your time in this building, I have to admire your optimism. For as far as their retention so if we were to expand those to people with less than five years on, do you have a concern that exacerbates my concern? In other words, my concern with this language is that we're creating pathways out of their profession. What does a fire service look like now as far as people getting in and then leaving? I I know police work is facing that. You heard the commissioner say, you know, that the people get into it. It's not what they thought it was. It's not for them. I think that the inherent shift work of law enforcement and I think both fields are twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, but they're different a bit in in the way that we do it. I think it seems to me it may be more palatable for young people in the fire service to do that than it is in in policing in some regards. But what are you seeing in the state as far as early attrition? In other words, people get into fire service for a few years and then say it's not for me to leave. Is that happening?

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: Sure. So the the first way that I I think I would wanna answer that question is is to to bifurcate volunteerism versus career. Because I think that what we're watching Important. Yeah. Very, very significant data showing the decline in volunteerism, and my colleagues, you know, are better positioned to answer that. Before Before I offer them the opportunity to do that, I would say that in terms of career attrition, we are not seeing it. We don't hear a siren call about, like, people leaving mid career to leave. What I would say is is I would use this part to say, let's create great working environments. Let's provide them with that college education. Find other suites of benefits that really encourage them to say, I do not disregard your concern about, you know, putting them onto education and moving them forward, but we overall and I I think we are okay with attrition. We have some things that we would like to continue to work on as it pertains to cancer, making sure people feel supported, making sure that their benefits are efficient and effective no matter how

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: So that is to attain.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: And and, you know, looking at the volunteer side of it, it's sort of a even a bigger concern of you if you go to everybody. Right? You don't put the minimum five years. Right? I mean, I look. I you know how I care about police, fire, and EMS. Right? But I have to be realistic about it too and say, look. If you if you open it to everybody, you could have a 19 year old young person that comes to their volunteer fire department and says, hey. I wanna be a volunteer, and now I'm a volunteer. I'm gonna get my education. Four years later, they're gone. Look. There's a tool there. Right? Maybe you develop a love for the fire service and they stay as a volunteer or they end up in the in the, you know, as a career firefighter or whatever, but you agree to me that that's a concern, though, if we were to do that. I'm not trying to defend the governor's office. I don't make a habit of doing that. But if you if you go below the five years, I assume that that's gonna be their their concern.

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: Okay. So I I wouldn't I wouldn't call it concern. I think I would call it a consideration that we should be mindful of. But I'm we are very passionate about trying to support people and then expecting a commitment as they move forward if they are going to receive that benefit. So I would look to my colleagues just because they are much better positioned to answer volunteer type of matters. So I could look.

[John Carew, Past President, Connecticut City Firefighters Association]: On on the on the volunteer side, the the the part that I I understand your concern, but we need we need it as a recruitment tool. We need to get them in the door. It it it's it's in a crisis. So we we need we need to get that four or five years and try and mold them to to be the the member that we want, whether they're using the volunteer service as a stepping stone to become a career paid person or not. Because of the situation we're in, that that's where the benefit is gonna be to to flop that around a little. Maybe it's not you know, maybe it goes one for one instead of so then you're gonna stretch that out to maybe seven or eight years versus five years. But I I I think we if we're gonna use that as a recruitment tool, it's it's gotta be more accessible earlier than five years. Because if

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: you you take the

[John Carew, Past President, Connecticut City Firefighters Association]: age limit, and five years, they're already out of college.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Right.

[John Carew, Past President, Connecticut City Firefighters Association]: You're we've already lost that. We've had many discussions that we need to start this program when they're in high school or even middle school, you know, to get them to know about being firefighters and police and EMTs. So if we're waiting until they're 17 or 18 years old, we missed it.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Well, I will take it. Thank you, John.

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: Rep. Howard, if if I may, sir, I apologize. I didn't recognize. I had another one of our joint council delegates, our my colleague, Jeff Tomczyk from the UPFFA, is probably well positioned to answer more of your career attrition issues, if you wouldn't mind.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Sure. Please.

[Jeff Tomczyk, Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut (UPFFA)]: I I I think, Chief Priest did a great job. First, thank you for allowing me to speak. I just wanted to add one one aspect of that. And, you know, we we we certainly appreciate and understand the the five year perspective, especially from from your position. One thing that we do look at though, and it's a matter of importance is realistically, this and I'm sure police, the profession is the exact same way. It's it's no longer really just that plain, not plain, just a a really blue collar job. The expertise and technicality of the job has grown to a position for our younger members to move through the ranks of the position are needing the advanced degrees through college programs. So what I think, Chief Priest was trying to allude to is that, you know, we will see naturally some of the workforce moving on to, to different locations, different industries. But realistically, if the state wants to promote and, and, support, the highest level of of, technical education that, the the leadership components need, this this benefit would be able to help them. And in regards to the the the five year or identifying in a shorter period of time for them to get in, I think what we also need to recognize too is that this isn't like an academy or basic training level course where they can do it in six to eight months. A matriculated student is gonna take, without a career, four years to get a degree. But theoretically, it took myself, it took some of the others at the table, you know, six to eight years to to really get it to, you know, involve in their in their work and life balance. So I don't believe that we will see a rush or mass effect of younger populations coming in just working that four years, getting their degree, and then getting out and and working in other other industries.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you, guys.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, representative Rochelle.

[Representative Kara Rochelle]: Thank you, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. So I'm a a big supporter of this bill as you are and very excited to see these steps forward. I did have one element that's been on my mind with this bill, and I wanted to get your feedback on it. And that is that I'm not sure if it's this version or or another bill, but it seems that the regional fire schools were left out of this bill. And I wanted to get your thoughts about you know, this is discussing sending folks to to university, which is great. That's a great incentive. But with our volunteer firefighters, not everyone is going to a university, and they often go to the regional fire schools. Is there a reason that you you could think of why we're not including them in this bill or or or, you know, what would be the rationale in in your eyes or or because it seems to me that's a it's a missed opportunity for not including them.

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: Thank you, representative Rochelle. Let me just consider that for one second, John. So do you have any thoughts on regional fire schools as it pertains to this? I think we're trying to provide formal education for both police and fire, and the regional fire schools are generally certification training programs. But I can do let me see if John has anything while I take a quick look at the bill.

[John Carew, Past President, Connecticut City Firefighters Association]: I'm not sure that it was particularly left out of the bill. I I believe when it came down from the governor's office, the education portion, the of of the of that with the colleges seem to be a little more on the on the higher end of in the block, but I don't think we're against it if there's a way to make it, and it's not a cost

[Jeff Tomczyk, Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut (UPFFA)]: deterrent.

[Chief Bud Myers, Town of Coventry; President, Connecticut Fire Chiefs Association]: I I I would also add to that that ideally, they're looking at the higher education as more of a retention, whereas the fire schools are more getting them through the door into, like, more of a recruitment aspect, getting their feet in in, you know, in the door and getting involved that way. And to keep them there would be the the higher end of that going with the

[Representative Kara Rochelle]: I can appreciate that. And I you know, I think that there are some folks that get into the fire service or may get into the fire service knowing that there's a a a, you know, a degree ahead of them if they serve for five years. But I'm thinking of, you know, communities across the state where we have folks that already took their fire one and fire two. But as as I'm sure you guys know well, the insurance rates that folks pay in towns are based on, to one degree, how how well trained the volunteer fire services. Right? And so the better trained to volunteer fire services, the better insurance rates are gonna be in towns, and the safer the firefighters will be. So we do have, I I would think, a a great amount of volunteer firefighters across the state they're currently serving that maybe can appreciate this this four year program, but maybe decide it's not for them, but would love to take that advanced level ropes class or or something along those lines. And and that would be a benefit to them to be able to do as well.

[Chief Bud Myers, Town of Coventry; President, Connecticut Fire Chiefs Association]: Yeah. I believe what you're talking about. It it goes through the ISO. And when they look at the training, they're they're looking at more of of doing a hundred ninety hours of training. Right? The fire schools offer opportunities for departments and members to go to that training to to receive that. So it it's what it's apples to oranges is what we're talking here, I believe.

[Representative Kara Rochelle]: I I appreciate that feedback. And I I think that some of these courses are are similar at times. I know that it's just because there was discussion of the State Fire Academy. The State Fire Academy covers a lot of, you know, obviously, you know, condensed. But these regional schools, for for some folks, they may say, I don't want a university degree, but I'm happy to get the training. So I'm just wondering if there's leaving them out when it's another incentive. That's all I'm saying. Is that is that this is a way to to not only incentivize people to get the training, or to become volunteer firefighters, young people who are saying, I'd love to earn a free degree, but to make sure that those who are currently volunteering stay involved, especially, you know, if they don't want to go through the whole possibility of matriculating a four year degree. We can at least get them further trained up. Right? My concern is are we shifting the training programs from our regional schools, which are state funded, to our university system? And is that always the best course? Or the should this be, one of the tools in the toolbox, not the entire tool?

[Chief Greg Priest, West Hartford Fire Department; Chair, Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations]: So would you be proposing, like, waiving the two the the course costs at the the regional schools? So the cost of the training off-site, is that I

[Representative Kara Rochelle]: I I would think that that would be a good start. The course costs at the regional schools, you know, for folks that have been there five years, you know, that's a huge cost burden on on municipalities, and some towns can't even afford to send them to these upper level classes. And so I think that we could expand the training that that is accessible to our regional volunteer firefighters if we were to waive those fees. Right now, you know, there's a small budget in all the municipalities for training every year. And while it will certainly help if folks can go to university not everyone will want to go to university and it's another way to get the workforce trained.

[Jeff Tomczyk, Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut (UPFFA)]: Thank you. May I comment on that? Thank you. Representative, I I I certainly appreciate and understand what you're trying to accomplish. I and I I do believe that the the need for affordable or available training is there both for the volunteer aspect and the the career aspect. Unfortunately, two different needs, but it is there. And I think that, you know, this being this bill particular, this this bill is is an initiative of the governor, really trying to capture the development of the workforce. I could understand that the perspective that the governor's office was was doing in development of of an issue like this was was was recognizing that that we're trying to pull in a a population of of of residents and citizens here, into the the, the career field of of of the fire service or police service regardless of of whether it's career or volunteer. And I think that the the subject that you're you're asking is is really to entice or or or work on the retention aspect of it. I think that if we go to a high school or operate in a career fair as I have done, with my department, what what we're trying to communicate to the populations that are not familiar with these career fields is, things that are attractive to them, like the college education aspect. They're not understanding really that, you know, there's a certain level of certification courses in order to advance your career. That's that's not really understood until they're captured and then so, I do applaud, that thought process, and I do I would certainly support it in in bill form. I just am trying to express that I think the governor's intention was, as I laid it out, and I I hope you understand that.

[Representative Kara Rochelle]: Absolutely. And I agree with you. I think it's I think it's a a a a brilliant bill to to recruit new young people, who are trying to fit navigate and sort how they're gonna go to school and and and having, getting folks engaged in in, the fire service, especially if they're of college age, it's it's it's a great way to get make it a lifelong endeavor. Right? And so I I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm just wondering if there is a way that we could satisfy both at once since we're having this conversation and in this bill right now, that we can, make sure that we're not leaving those folks out as well because this would, help with retention for folks that, maybe have been volunteers for five years. Maybe they're, you know, 30, 40 years old, and and, they can, this would be a way to keep the volunteer fire service, keep them engaged, keep them involved, and and two birds, one stone.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Any additional questions from members of the committee? Alrighty. Seeing none, thank you all so much for joining us today and for answering our questions. We appreciate it. At this time, I see chief Fusaro for Connecticut Police Chiefs Association here. Thank you so much for joining us, sir.

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: Good afternoon, and thank you, senator Gassen and representative Boyd, ranking members Ciccarolo and Howard, and distinguished members of the public safety committee. I'm LJ Fazaro. I'm the president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association. I'm joined here today with several of my colleagues from from across the state who represent police departments across Connecticut, and we're in support of, house bill five zero four six. And we commend the governor and the general assembly for recognizing the urgent recruitment of retention crisis that faces public safety, in particular law enforcement in the state. Now this bill represents a meaningful and important first step. While educational incentives and financial assistance and the related supports are valuable tools in attracting qualified individuals to policing, encouraging experienced officers to remain in service. These measures, while they send an important message that the state of Connecticut understands the staffing challenges we face and that it's committed to addressing them, we also understand that these financial incentives, while important, they're not they're only part of the solution. It's the start of a good discussion, and we wanna participate in that. Connecticut, like much of the nation, has experienced a significant decline in applicants. At the same time, we face retention challenges at multiple stages of an officer's career. Many officers retire at their earliest opportunities, while others leave the profession within three to five years after departments have invested substantial time and resources in their recruitment and training. And there's several factors that contribute to this crisis. The COVID nineteen pandemic reshaped workforce expectations across all professions and increased the demand for flexibility and work work life balances, which is a challenge in a twenty four seven public safety profession. Earlier today, I heard someone talk about, assistance with daycare. I think those are all things that we, encounter in law enforcement. I've certainly had officers. I had one recently leave because of that very issue. But more significantly, following the period of 2020, which had a profound impact on policing, CPCA supported several accountability measures that became law, including expanded training requirements, psychological evaluations, integration of social workers, body worn cameras, and drug testing. And these changes were well though often well intentioned and necessary, coincided with a broader shift in perception of law enforcement. Prospective candidates consistently express concern about the risks associated with the profession. Many worry about the split second decisions they're asked to make in dangerous rapidly evolving situations, even when lawful and consistent with their training, could result in serious legal or professional consequences. Whether intended or not, the perception has tangible impact on morale, recruitment, and retention. But we're encouraged by this conversation that announced that now appears to be shifting. Communities across Connecticut want safe cities and towns, and police officers are charged with carrying out that responsibility. There are signs of a more balanced and constructive dialogue around public safety, and recruitment and retention needs to work in that direction. Officers have complex jobs. They're expected to serve as law enforcement officers, mental health providers, crisis negotiators, and community problem solvers, oftentimes simultaneously. In an era of staffing shortages, departments must also rely more heavily on technology that serves as a force multiplier, such as drones and license plate readers to enhance public safety and compensate for reduced personnel. Our members firmly believe in accountability for misconduct. Professional standards are essential to maintaining public trust. But at the same time, officers must also have confidence that when they act lawfully and in good faith and within their training, they're supported. Compensation, tuition assistance, and financial incentives matter, but equally important are the confidence that police policy and law supports proactive policing and holds accountable those who endanger the public, not the officers working to protect them. House bill five zero four six is a positive and necessary step, and we strongly support it. We respectfully submit that it should also serve as a beginning of a broader conversation about the root causes of staffing shortages. So the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association remains ready to work collaboratively with the governor, the general assembly, and community stakeholders to ensure that Connecticut remains a place where qualified individuals are proud to serve. I also wanna indicate that we are in support of House Bill 5,400, which is discusses the removing of the dash camera requirement from bicycles, which was identified by one of our members. And with that, I'd open I'd welcome any questions.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Representative Howard. You knew that.

[John Carew, Past President, Connecticut City Firefighters Association]: I knew it.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you. Chief, first and foremost, I wanna thank you for your candid and honest testimony here today. I think it takes a lot of courage, and, I'm grateful that that you and, CPCA is taking the position that you are. You've been in law enforcement for a long time. You've seen generations come and go, and my and that's not it's not a dig on your age, chief. Thank you. But what what what do you think is the the greatest reason why we're seeing so down in Stonington, one of the towns I represent, in the last four or five years, we've had, I just counted, I think, six or seven people come into the profession and leave within three or four years. Excuse me. Twenty years ago, that was on that just didn't happen. Right? It was very, very unusual. Seems to be the norm now. What is your best estimation as to why that is?

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: Well, I I I think I'd be disingenuous if I didn't say the impacts of the last several years in law enforcement didn't have didn't have an impact. Right? That they didn't, you know, police officers have seen what prospective police officers have seen what has happened and maybe makes it a little bit less attractive. But you combine that with, some other things that are happening in society. I mean, I'm I I don't mean to sound hypocritical, but as we sit here right now, I have a son who's not in law enforcement but graduated from college, moved into the private sector, and and quite frankly, works at home most of the time. We just can't offer that in law enforcement. You know, I pointed out earlier, last week during a blizzard, our officers and firefighters, for that matter, didn't have the opportunity to stay at home. They needed to be at work. They needed to be out there providing public safety. So I I think we need to emphasize how strongly we support public safety folks here in the state of Connecticut because there there needs to be a source of pride and commitment on those that would enter the profession. And this is a sacrifice. Going into public service is not you know, you're never gonna get rich, but you wanna be properly compensated. We wanna make sure that they're valued. We wanna make sure that they have, you know, good benefits throughout their their career, but then some. So I think there's a variety of reasons. You know, again, I'll hit it again, but we lost an officer recently because of daycare issues. She moved on to some another profession at that exact window. We've lost elders to to a variety of reasons, and and and that's not uncommon. We do see officers moving out of the profession today, but but we need to make it more attractive so that people come in and that those that are already in it, that they stay for for the long haul and even beyond retirement.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Right. And I'm not and I thank you. And I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that we don't have a new generation of young people that don't wanna work weekends and nights and holidays that that police officers for generations and for generations to come will have to do. I recognize those things, and that brings me to my next concern. Mhmm. And I'm interested in your opinion. You heard me ask others. When you take all those things into consideration, you know, sort of the, some of the legislation that you you sort of loosely referenced, sort of the culture that you referenced, this this new generation of young people and their their their different expectations of what work is. I'll try to say it as nice as I can. Is there a concern that, you know, we're by giving this education center, we're actually opening doors for for them to leave that they wouldn't have otherwise had open.

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: Well, representative Howard, I I can understand your concern with that, and I think that there may be some merit to that, but I would encourage consideration of some strings being attached to this very thing. You know, I know that general Yvonne was up here a little while ago and talked about the value that this has had for the guard, a similar a similar type of program, which quite frankly, that's how I started my career, joining the military going into the National Guard and then a law enforcement career. But there are some strings attached. As far as longevity, you have to stay in for an amount of time. We don't we don't make people, enlist into law enforcement or fire service for that matter. They generally can leave when when they want to, but I would attach some strings. And I'd also submit for your consideration that maybe we look at some of those folks that have already gone through college. What I find in in the in the people that I interview for new policing jobs now, they've some have military experience, some have graduated recently from college. So whereas this is a benefit, and I do encourage it, maybe look at what might be some additional steps that we can take for those that are incumbent officers that might be considering, hey, I've got I've got thousands and thousands of dollars of debt that is I've incurred over my college career that I'm trying to pay off. Maybe there's some some ability to help them out with that as well.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Tuition reimbursement, you mean? Correct. Right. Okay. Thank you, chief. And, again, I I I can't stress this enough that your agency in the last few years has been a fierce advocate for their profession and public safety in this state. And I but I mean, the CPCA, certainly Groton Town Police, I have great respect for as well, but, I can't stress enough how grateful I and and police officers and legislators in this building are for you. So thank you.

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: Well, thank you for saying that. CPCA will always remain a a partner with the general assembly and the governor's office and whomever we can be to forward what's best for the citizens of the state of Connecticut.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Any additional questions, comments from members of the committee? I did want to make a comment. Chief, thank you so much for joining today, and thank you so much for your testimony. And I also appreciate your candor and pointing out that it's a multiplicity of different issues as to why the profession is waning and not one singular focus. And there is a significant generational shift relative to how younger people are looking and assessing jobs and opportunities. Formally, I served as the, chair of the civil service for the city of Bridgeport, and I chuckled pretty violently one time when I was going through an interview process with a young officer. And he says, well, you know, we don't have to respond to all 911 calls. You know, some of them we can triage and give them a call and say, hey. Is it really emergency? I'm like, well, no. It's a 911 call. You actually have to show up. So with that being said, you know, I I think about, the revolutionary ways that younger people are helping us to evolve in different industries? And do you see a way in which perhaps in the future that there could be certain things that might be considered at home task relative to law enforcement profession?

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: I don't know about at home. You know, again, I'm to to representative Howard's point, I'm I'm showing my age here. I I never heard the term work life balance until maybe two years ago. I wasn't quite sure what what it meant. So maybe I would have been a better police officer over the years had I had I learned that long ago. There are some things technology wise that we can leverage to our benefit, and I'll give you an example. And you talked about a 911 call. 1 of those programs that's starting now in law enforcement, it's kind of in its infancy, and I only know of one or two cities and towns here in Connecticut that are taking advantage of it is drone drone is a first responder where maybe we can assess a nine one one call, a drone that that would be at different locations throughout a community. 911 call comes in, whether it's a a police call, a fire call, an EMS call, we could send that out in advance and maybe either assess it or or or, adjudicate it from a distance. Right? But, hey, the the drone flies out there. I know there's some programs out there. I'm, in fact, going to some training on it in a couple of weeks myself. There are things that can be done remotely, but by and large, police officers need to be on scene. Right? We can't we have to be present. Right? When there's a traffic accident, there's a domestic violence incident, when somebody's been, you know, the victim of a crime, we're at the you know, as I say to our young officers, the the thing about police work is we have a front row seat to everything that happens in life, and many of it's bad. When we're called, we're not asked to bring a a check from the lottery commission to say, hey. You just hit it. We're we're there for the bad times. We're there when they're the victim of a crime, when they're a suspect of a crime or been involved in a a a tragedy or the worst times yet, we're knocking on their door and delivering the worst news that they're ever gonna get in their life. So it is you know, that there are some things. There's technology that we can leverage. There may be some duties that maybe we can do remotely, but by and large, most of the stuff that we do today is is is front facing.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Yeah. Thank you. The last, comment that I'll make relative to that is, you know, a lot of young folks that I'm talking to, they say, well, you know, we live in a society now where, you know, there's you know, it's legal, to smoke marijuana and, you know, applying for law enforcement or going into the fire profession. You know, these are things that are sort of prohibited. And most of them say, hey. You know, we've run into issues or challenges in the past with the law, and those are things that kinda, you know, stand in the way of us moving into that profession. Or we have to take the psychological examination. And based on us growing up in trauma informed communities, we tend to respond to those psychological questions differently. And also it depends upon, you know, who's assessing in that psychological space to determine whether or not that person is fit or not to make that determination. I mean, are you seeing that any of those areas perhaps could also be, barriers to entry or if there's ways in which we could, work better in that area that you see?

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: I'm sorry. Yes. I think well, there are some listen. We can always improve in every every facet of it. The difference with law enforcement is we have a very arduous selection process to make sure that if we're we're providing a person that comes off the street with training, that when they're completed they've completed that training, that they are they're well equipped to do it. But we also that starts before they walk in our doors. That starts with their background. That starts with all those things that we look at when we assess an individual's ability to be a police officer. Not everybody can, and not everybody wants to be a police officer. But to your point, the psychological exam, the polygraph, we wanna know what kind of person this is. Now what I explain to people is, you know, we when when when you're going through the background investigation, when I give a conditional offer of employment to a potential police officer, I say, that's all I can do for you. I can say, I've got a position in our organization, but the rest is up to you. And the next step is the polygraph exam and then the psychological. And what I tell them is, number one, the polygraph is pretty simple. We want you to be honest. We need integrity in this line of work. If you can't be honest, we don't watch it. So and that's the first hurdle they have to overcome. Secondly, I also tell them that there's a and I'm usually in in in the company of my deputy chief. I say, no one in this room is perfect. We have made mistakes. We've done things that we've learned from. We've we've done things that were we to do it again, we'd probably reassess and say that's not a good idea, not a good decision. But what I wanna know is what have you done since that time? Time, distance, and shielding. How much time? Did you smoke marijuana? Did you do something that you regret? There are things that we can't overcome. If you tell me in the in the midst of your polygraph that you committed a homicide, you've told the truth, but we're not gonna hire you. What we do want is we wanna know that you've changed those behaviors, not last week, but some time ago. If you said, you know what? I I, you know, I abused alcohol or I abused drugs or abused but I've made corrections. I've my behavior when I was in high school isn't what it is today. That time distance and shielding, the the measures that you've taken to distance yourself from that activity, to change your behaviors, to make yourself someone who we would consider to be a police officer, we want you. And we don't expect perfection, but what we expect is someone that's going to be out there and be a person of integrity, that's committed to the mission that we have and to make sure they're serving their community in effect in effective way.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you so much. Any additional questions? Yep. Representative Jenga.

[Representative Henry Genga]: Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for your testimony. I noticed in bill five zero four six, you stated that we should amend it to include emergency medical services and put them at the same level as as firefighters and policemen. But how do you define those in the emergency medical service?

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: Well, representative, I I did not put that in my testimony, but we are not in a we are we are not opposed to that. You know, we certainly do we have no we have no objection to that. If I don't know if I'm answering your question in my Am

[Representative Henry Genga]: I reading the wrong testimony. I don't know.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: That's going around today. Greg Allard?

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: I am not Greg Allard. No, sir. I'm I'm LJ Cizarro. I'm happy to speak to that and but I don't speak for mister Allard. I'll tell you that.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: More coffee is needed necessary. That was a

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: great impersonation of a senator, representative. That was excellent.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Oh my goodness. Shots fired in here. At any rate, I will be ordering coffee for everybody in a few moments. We appreciate your testimony and your comments and your time today. Please be safe out on the road. Well, thank you. Welcome. Zach Levy. Thank you so much for being here today.

[Zach Levy, Deputy Director, AFSCME Council 4]: Thank you, everyone. Good afternoon. My name is Zach Levy, and I'm the deputy director for Ask Me Council four, which represents over 2,000 municipal police officers across Connecticut. We wanna thank governor Lamont and his committee, for proposing this step towards improving recruitment and retention for police officers. We appreciate that this legislation would waive tuition for officers who have served five years at Connecticut State Community Colleges, CSUs, and Yukon. We've seen the work of police officers continue to become more difficult as we ask them to take on tasks outside of policing in our communities. At the same time, we've seen activists create an increasingly hot increasingly hostile environment towards police officers whenever there is an opportunity. It is difficult for police departments to recruit new officers in this climate who would be willing to serve their communities. Allowing officers to attend public higher education institutions for their undergraduate and graduate degrees would help would help reward tenure and continued services. These degrees would also help improve upward mobility for officers without taking on student loan debt. We also support section four, which would direct the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority to develop a program to assist police officers and firefighters in buying a home in the municipality they serve. The difficulty in buying homes in the housing crisis in our state is hit everyone hard, and this assistance will help the dedicated front line workers in our communities purchase a home. This will help attract officers to municipalities that struggle the most with high housing costs and recruitment. While we support this step towards improving recruitment and retention for police officers, we also ask that in future sessions, the legislature meaningfully address defined benefit pension security and retiree health insurance for police officers. We also ask that the committee include correction officers in this legislation as they are law enforcement officers who are also dealing with reduced recruitment and retention. Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you so much for your testimony. Anyone else that have questions, concerns, comments online or in person, please speak now. Alright. Seeing none from the committee, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. At this time, we'll now have Vin DiMeo, Police Association of Connecticut.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: Well, what a complex problem we have in front of us. I'm here. Obviously, I've been here many times. Chief Vindimeo, represented Police Associations of Connecticut. I also wanna recognize that I do have members of my executive board here, our president, our secretary, and our regional representatives from Fairfield County joining me today. So and I have written some testimony down. And in the interest of this not resembling, an offbeat movie with Bill Murray and a rodent from Pennsylvania, I'm gonna read those into the into the record quickly. So good afternoon, chairman Boyd, chairman Gaston, ranking members Howard, and Ciccarella at home, esteemed members of the Public Safety Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on important legislation, not only for the benefit of Connecticut's first responders, but for the people of Connecticut as well by ensuring that we can continue to detract the highest caliber of individuals to the state's emergency services. As you're aware, we've been working with your committee and testifying on this issue of police officer recruitment and retention for more than three years now. I'm here today as in the past representing the nearly 7,000 members of the Police Association of Connecticut and their families. I also now have the privilege of standing alongside our brothers and sisters in the fire service who were here, but they got out. And, also, I'm very happy that we are working very closely with the CPCA on this initiative as well. So it's very nice that we're all standing together on this issue. It's been a long road. As I've repeatedly mentioned in my testimony, this problem represents the largest impact of public safety that I've witnessed in my thirty seven years as in Connecticut law enforcement. For the past several years, the Police Association of Connecticut has been sounding the warning about the negative impacts to public safety created by the dramatic decline in qualified applicants to our professions. This has been a sea change. When I began my career in public safety, hundreds and in many cases, thousands of applicants applied for any opening in the police or fire services. Hiring processes regularly took upwards of two years to complete due to the enormous size of the qualified candidate pools. In recent times, particularly in the twenty twenties, the narrative's completely opposite. Our current trajectory and our anemic candidate pools are unsustainable, and they will result in diminished capabilities to provide people of Connecticut the services that they both expect and deserve. We must act now. We must attract and retain to this these professions people that possess integrity, compassion, and have a sense of duty and service to others. House Bill five zero four six represents a step forward in the right direction. Not only does it provide some incentives to help us compete with a more lucrative private sector, more importantly, it signal it signals a substantive show of support for the state's first responders, a position that has been quiet here in the capital for too long. The men and women of Connecticut law enforcement have a long standing, demonstrated record of professional and exemplary service. They are not deserving of being punished for the actions of others. We have remained consistent throughout, delivering the highest levels of service to all who live, work, and visit our great state. On behalf of the 7,000 members of the Police Association of Connecticut, their families, their neighbors, and friends, I implore this committee to recommend passage of House Bill five zero four six to the full legislature and begin the process of recognizing the dedication, professionalism of Connecticut's first responders, the significance of the service which they deliver, and and to provide them with the support to continuously improve improve the levels of service that we unceasingly deliver to all. And with that, I would

[John Carew, Past President, Connecticut City Firefighters Association]: be happy

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: to have a great questions. My distinguished co chair said he had very brief remarks for you, So we'll stick to brevity. Thank you.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: I just want chief, I just wanna thank you because we would not be at this point with the governor's support had it not been for the work of you and your organization over the last other cycles for us to try to build this out and and kinda get a path forward. And I just wanna thank you and your organization for being at the table even when there was nobody else in the room paying attention. So, hopefully, we have some momentum we can catch. So thank you, chief.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: I greatly appreciate that. And as I sit here and and and listen to all the different inputs, I do wanna remind everybody that we do need to take action. And this is not the perfect bill, but it is a step in the right direction. I think it starts to show some support to our first responder community here that they are supported at this level. So I I I would hope that we can get this across the finish line, and we can work on improvement from there. But I'm very gratified to see that it is becoming a conversation rather than me just talking to the wall or I'd

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: Not to imply that you're the wall.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Representative Howard.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you, mister chairman. I echo chairman Boyd's comments, chief. And I'm probably gonna step in something right here, and I might be dragging you in it with me, so I apologize ahead of time. But do you think in the state that our bigger cities with our bigger police departments are facing more of a crisis than the smaller communities?

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: From the outset, I don't have, you know, the data right in front of me, but I will tell you that we do see a lot of lateral entries. And so I am the South Central Region, which is the 25 communities that are the Greater New Haven area. And we see a lot of poaching out of the larger agencies. And I'm sure Waterbury can speak to that. Hartford, the larger agencies seem to have a higher workload, maybe less pay, and are kind of their their best candidates are taken by smaller agencies such as myself. Yeah. K. That's why I think I might add.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: There there there might be some other people in the room who might get upset with where I'm headed with this, but I'll accept that criticism. But what I'm driving at is, you know, I I think and and tell me if you agree that, you know, especially in our big cities, because they have to fill positions quickly. They're bigger police departments. I fear that there there may be a shift to lower standards, right, to some degree. Do you do you have a comment on that? Hey. Well, let me give you two two things at once in the interest of my move time. Here's my concern, and I'm interested in your in your thoughts on this. My concern is that the cities face a more complex recruitment and retention problem than perhaps the smaller towns. They also have a higher call volume. So it's a recipe for disaster if we have cities, and this is not reflective of any single city. I'm just the the laws of natural selection are or the laws of selection, not natural selection. Sorry. Laws of selection are such that in those bigger cities where there's pay is gonna be less and the the need is greater, we run a higher risk of taking of lowering the bar a bit for the people that are gonna have the most fit forward facing public interaction. If the resources on recruitment and retention are limited, is there value in the state as a whole to take those limited resources and focus in them on our bigger cities?

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: Speaking for a smaller agency and and probably vast majority of the state of Connecticut, I would say that is more negatively impactful to the rest of the state. I understand where your position is, and I think the position of the of the police association in Connecticut and I would dare say that the CPCA would be of the same opinion is that we have always advocated that we should not lower the standards. We cannot lower the standards. And I've heard testimony and different ideas from different people concerning this. And the reason that we need to have such a high bar and such a stringent process is that we are putting officers making life and death decisions in very extremely stressful situations. Now we can't foresee we don't have a crystal ball to see how they're gonna react, but we have to put in some artificial stressors, understand what their moral character is, what their decision making processes are before we put them into those situations where, God forbid, we could have them overreacting to a situation, and then we have an excessive use of force. Somebody gets hurt. Somebody gets killed. We need to have a certain type of individual that is able to perform under stressful conditions, make logical, clear, safe decisions. So if we lower the bar, the problem is going to be we are gonna see what we saw which drove the bus here. Right?

[Professor John DeCarlo, University of New Haven]: That's right.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: We

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: had exclusive media coverage of bad policing incidents and people that probably maybe shouldn't have been doing the job. Memphis being one of them. You know? And that's a clear indicator of when they lower the standards and they brought people in and they didn't do background investigation, then they found out a lot of people had gang affiliations and other things, and we had a very bad incident. So we need to ensure that the level remains high. What we need to do is find pathways as we I've heard numerous times is we need to find pathways into this organization and bring it back to when it was when, you know, job in the late eighties and early nineties. And it was very, very difficult because so many people wanted the job. Right? And this was a career, and it was aspired to as a career by many people. You know? I don't wanna say I was back in elementary school in the seventies, but I was. And everybody wanted to be a copper fireman. That's what it was. I mean, they went around the room and what did you wanna be? Nobody else wanted to be something else. And we know that things evolve, but this is an honorable profession. It always has been an honorable profession, and I will stand here each and every day and continually reiterate that Connecticut law enforcement is some of the best in the world. And things that have happened around the country have not happened here. You know, there accountability is a two way street and the police chiefs of Connecticut will never fight you on accountability or transparency. That is what we want. We wanna provide the best possible product to every single person. But we can't be held accountable for the actions of others and people that are creating, you know, perpetrating criminal acts have to be held accountable for their actions as well. It can't be all wrong on our intervention in the situation that we're placed in. There's gotta be some dual accountability.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Thank you. I I appreciate that. I'll just say this. I I represent two well, three talents, two of whom excuse me. Two of which have police departments that are smaller. It's not a self serving thing except to say that to your point, if if our big cities in Connecticut and I agree with you. All of our cities. Our biggest cities, police departments in Connecticut are are highly trained and they're and they're among the best in the world. I totally agree. My concern is that if if our bigger cities are facing a a more exponential recruitment and retention problem and we don't make that investment there, it can have a profound effect on the smaller departments as well because you create, as you say, in Memphis. Right? If if we if we end up going down a road in Connecticut where we have to lower our bar a little bit because they have to fill seats in those cities, the bigger police departments, and then something bad like Memphis happens here, it has a profound effect on the climate culture, which is which is hitting your police departments and mine. So my my my question for the for you and and for all of us is does even if we take the resources are limited. Right? The governor's office would would be happy to give the tuition to every cop's kids if money was was an unlimited resource, and it's not. If we take those resources and put it in there, is there actually a return on investment holistically long term for the for the smaller PDs to avoid those things? That's what I'm driving at. Just food for thought. And I I I know there's smaller PDGs here that are gonna be like, we should have taken his microphone away. I get it. But I try to think about the whole big picture and try to say this professionally connected.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: And, again, I think we're still at the 5,000 foot level. So my perspective on this to address your concern about the larger cities, which is a very valid concern, is that we need to incentivize and restore this profession to what it was so that we have so many candidates that the candidate has to say, well, if I want a job, I'm gonna have to go work in one of the larger cities. You know, I'm not gonna leave. And then, I will say that the last three of my hires in my agency all grew up in my town. They're all, graduates of my local high school, and they're fantastic. So and I and I hear people say, well, you know, they don't wanna work, but they do wanna work. And they're invested in their community. And I think that is a bit of stroke of luck maybe. Maybe we have some incentives. You know, we have we just signed on for the Siemers pension. That's that's boosted a little bit for us. We have a good work environment. You know, we're community oriented. So we do a lot of things, I think, that maybe make us attractive. However, if you can bring this back and you can get and people understand that this is a real truly a good career. Right? You're gonna have the level. We have to raise the entire level of the candidate pool. It can't just be for, you know, City x or Town c. It's gotta be holistic, and we have to raise these numbers. We have to make this an attractive profession again, and it's not a it's not a job. It's a profession, and it's a calling. And you need to have people that are gonna put their twenty years in, twenty five years in.

[Chief Bud Myers, Town of Coventry; President, Connecticut Fire Chiefs Association]: Thank you, chief. Thank you

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: so much. I appreciate the comment about sort of not lowering the bar, but I do certainly think that we have to recalibrate the bar where necessary because you can't keep applying old school remedies to new school taxes looking for a different set of results. And personally, you know, I always say this that, you know, the seven last words to any dying institution, whether we're talking about the church world, whether we're talking about any other profession, is that we've never done it this way before. So we have to look at other ways to really assess, all of the different industries out there. And I agree with you.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: Yeah. No. I agree with you as well. And I you know, and and our our our saying is a little bit different. We just say, if you this is the way we've always done it. So I tell my people, the first time you come, you get slapped in the face when you say that's the way we've always done it. Unless you have an alternative that's workable. If you're just saying that that's the way we've always done it, again, that's just dismissive, and that does nobody any good. So next time we might get fired if you say it twice.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Absolutely. Well, after seventeen years of pastoring, twelve years in higher education, I've been sitting between, representative DG Boncarlo as well as representative Howard. I've been proselytized almost being an officer. I hope I meet the rigorous standards.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: I think

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: we I think we we need to be honorary ranking senator at this

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: point. So, thanks, chief for being here. I I do wanna say that, although it may feel like the cities are lower in the bar, I'm not sure that they're lower in the bar. I will say this, 02/2006, Waterbury Police Department, time I got hired, no national narrative of how terrible police officers were. Not no horrible. What was taken away was their medical. What was taken away was pension. What was taken away from fire. Was there overtime? And that began the exodus out of the big cities that were once great pensions, great medical when you left. I don't think at Waterbury, we run our own academy. I don't think the bar has been lowered. I think you see a different a new pool a new pool of candidates. May maybe in certain instances, what on the record that wasn't forgivable years ago is now a little bit forgivable. The mayor the the legalization of marijuana, that you have that candidate that now has waited two years to say, maybe I wanna be a cop. Maybe I should step aside and not smoke. But, I I do think to to representative Howard's point, the smaller towns have the have do have the luxury of taking their time, not filling massive holes, not trying to fill the gaps of of of a real big problem. When small towns down one or two officers, it seems it seems a big problem when a city's down fifty, sixty, 70 officers. It it it is a big problem. You have guys burning out. You have guys working being held over. So so to his point, I I I believe it's more of a it's more of we gotta do better in the big cities. Now whether that's on our end, whether that's the state, but I, you know, I talked to a a leader of a town, small town, and we're trying to get seamers for Waterbury. And and, you know, this person said, dawg, that seamers is horrible. That seamers is horrible. It's a terrible thing. It's too expensive. Well, they had seamers, and they just got through poaching about three, four, five of our officers, well trained officers that, you know, the Waterbury taxpayers paid paid for, trained, and the Waterbury Police Department at the time. And once again, now you're back right in that process again. So I I think it's a it's there's there's no perfect answer, but but I do believe I I do believe that they'll not only do they have the luxury of picking a candidate. Once in a while, they can poach ours too. So that's the that is the ongoing problem, I think, with with the cities. And and and and, again, there are other factors that you know? But I I believe you restore pensions, you restore medical, you're gonna see a lot more men and women come back to this field.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: So thank you. And I would agree with you 100%. And I think that's the thing that's helped me as a small agency on the shoreline. I was one of the few that had a pension, and then we moved to the Seymour's pension, which I think strengthened that, and it was a much better pension than the private pension that we did have. But, the the towns all around me had four o ones, and they are people starting to realize now that, okay. Well, we got rid of the pension, and we put into a four zero one k. And then those people, who came in as entry level officers did their three years, and then they left to go get a job somewhere that had a pension. And then so the municipality ended up paying an entry level person top level pay because they took that money with them when they left. And and so I think we're starting to see come back to, again, building this up as a profession. And I think as we continue to do that, to representative Howard's point and to your point about the larger cities, I think you have to say that if we can raise up the profession, we will get the candidates to come. If you build it, they will come. I hate to use cliches. Well, I say, love the we use them. But that's really where we're gonna be. If we if we have thousands upon thousands of candidates, then that's gonna answer that's gonna fix the problem for us. Right? That's what that's what we're trying to attract. And I think if we truly try to dissect it and divert and bifurcate, it creates all kinds of issues. Just we saw it today. Just just in this bill alone, we had two simple things, tuition reimbursement and and mortgage assistance, but now we have 15 other things piled into it. So it it it can roll out of control very quickly. But the police association of Connecticut, we are here advocating, you know, for passage of the bill again for the for the reasons that I point. We wanna raise the profession up. We wanna address the issue at hand. I think that's the critical issue at hand is that we don't have enough people to push the profession forward. And in five to ten years, we're gonna see real problems. I think commissioner Higgins spoke to it, and and chief Fusaro has also spoken to it. We need to get qualified candidates to apply, and then we can start working on nuanceing nuanceing that. But we have to get good people in. We have to get them trained, and then we have to retain them.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Yeah. And thank you. And and and to the last point, I mean, we could take a teacher thirty five years and give medical the rest of their lives. There's no reason we can't figure out the process of of even a police officer working. Even that'll talk about retention. Yeah. You stay thirty five years, you get medical the rest of your life. I I think that's not much of an ask. I know it's expensive, but I think if if if it's good for some certain unions, it should be good for others.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: No. And I and I'm not sure what the house bill is, but I did notice that comptroller Scanlon has a has a bill where he's going to have a study to see where that goes with, firefighters and police officers and their health care after retirement. So we would support that as well.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Yeah. Thank you. I've been I've been beating up the control around that gap insurance, so, hopefully, that's what you're speaking of. So thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Representative Sheikh.

[Representative Shaikh]: Thank you, mister chairman. Chief, always good to see you. And I'm new here, but in, the public hearings and testimony from this session last session, I just really appreciate you coming back and being able to clearly articulate, a, we're not gonna lower standards, right, for our professions across within public safety, but specifically within police. And then also being able to to articulate holistically what is happening on the ground and being able to look at the past and the current situation and to talk about what you've learned and observed. And I also heard that, from our other chief also. So I just wanna say thank you and amen amen to, you know, being able to bring to the front line the main issues that impact multiple different labor sectors, but specifically within public safety. It's retirement health care. And before that is wages and then being able to afford to live in the community for the most part or region at least for where our officers serve. So, yes, the bill that you were referring to, chief, was five three eight two. That was the comptroller's bill. My other committee, labor and public employees, we heard about that. So hopefully, all my colleagues here look into that because we heard great testimony there also of what our retired police officers and firefighters are facing. Meaning, they thought they could retire twenty years, twenty five years, and then they're looking at whatever that medical cost is. And now they need another ten years of of working because they can't afford it. So I just wanted to say thank you. And I think Stratford, as everybody I think in this building is more aware of now, we are one of those municipals also where we're technically not a city, but because, you know, we had a pension the town had a pension, got got rid of it over ten years ago, we have lost so many experienced personnel going to those other towns or cities where they do offer a pension, where they do offer more comprehensive medical benefits. And then, again, from labor and public employees, one of our firefighters was explaining in that retirement system, not only do we need to be able to build within public safety a bridge in, we need to be able to build the bridge out so that as those retiring out of public safety are able to then live live their lives with dignity and respect for the years that they have left. So thank you for coming and testifying and really helping to articulate what it is that's happening and for your advocacy, for your profession. Appreciate it.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: Thank you, representative Shake. I really appreciate your comments. And, also, I I think that it's starting to become understood that there is a real cost to retention for municipalities. Strapper can be a prime example because it's right front and center. You you invest it's nearly a year from the time we begin the testing process till we get the first shift alone by a police officer. That's a full year. And if your staffing is down, you have backfill overtime now to cover shifts, and you're eating up the existing staff, and you're paying overtime to fill that one empty position. That person then stays for two or three years when they're finally starting to really understand the job. This is a very complex, demanding job, and you're really not able to function in it by yourself on your own to a decent level until you have three to five years in. And then you're so when you're when the municipality is finally starting to realize its investment, they take off and go to another town. And there's a real there's a huge cost to that, which we often don't factor, and I think it's starting to finally get a little bit of attention that that it's a true cost in the overall equation.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Any additional comments from members of the committee, whether online or in person? Alright. Seeing none, thank you so much for joining us. It's always good to see you.

[Chief Vincent DeMaio, Police Association of Connecticut (PAC)]: You all. I really appreciate all the time and effort that you've given on this, thank you again.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thanks, chief. At this time, Dan and Katie, please from NGACT, vice president and president. Thanks so much for joining us on today, and thanks for your patience of waiting in the gallery.

[Katie Zazitskaya, President, National Guard Association of Connecticut]: Committee co chairs, senator Gaston, representative Boyd, vice chairs, senator Slapp, and representative DiGi Boncarlo, ranking members, senator Ciccarelli, and representative Howard, and distinguished members of the public safety and security committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of house bill fifty forty six. My name is Katie Zazitskaya, and I am the president of the National Guard Association of Connecticut. While h b five zero four six, excuse me, addresses important recruitment and retention tools for firefighters and police officers, I respectfully submit this testimony to emphasize the importance of the provision waiving mandatory public college and university fees for members of the Connecticut National Guard. A fee waiver at public colleges and universities has been NAGAX primary legislative priority for at least a decade. I was thrilled to hear the governor's announcement that this bill would include fees in the exist in the existing tuition waiver. NAGAX has sent some minor corrections to the drafter to ensure the fee language meets the bill's stated intent. Police, fire, and the Connecticut National Guard are among the main pillars of Connecticut's disaster response framework. This bill and the inclusion of the fee waiver are meaningful investments into the recruitment and retention of these organizations. Members of the Connecticut National Guard serve in a unique dual role answering to both the governor for state missions and the president for federal deployments. Over the past several years, Connecticut guardsmen have responded to public health emergencies, severe weather events, civil support missions, and overseas deployments, all while maintaining civilian employment and pursuing higher education. Many of our service members serve the state and local municipalities as police, fire, and EMTs. Although the current tuition waiver is a critical benefit to the Connecticut National Guard, mandatory university fees remain a significant out of pocket expense. These fees are mandatory for all students regardless of whether or not they commute. For many enlisted guardsmen and junior officers, they represent a real financial burden. Waiving mandatory fees would strengthen recruitment by enhancing education benefits, improve retention by easing financial pressures, and support workforce development by enabling members to complete degrees and professional certifications. This would demonstrate Connecticut's tangible commitment to those who serve. Education benefits are one of the most decisive factors influ influencing enlistment and reenlistment decisions. Competing states are expanding benefits for their guard members. If Connecticut is to remain competitive in attracting and retaining qualified service members, we must ensure our education benefits reflect the value we place on service. This provision is not simply a financial accommodation. It is a recognition of sacrifice. Guardsmen routinely leave their families' careers and classrooms to serve when called. Ensuring they can return to their education without added financial penalty is both fair and prudent public policy. On behalf of the National Guard Association of Connecticut, I respectfully urge this committee to support house bill fifty forty six in advance the mandatory fee waiver provision for members of the Connecticut National Guard. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Representative Boyd.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you both for first your patience and a a long day in your testimony. And and you're probably in the room earlier when the tag gave his his testimony. Just two quick questions. One is if you could just summarize kinda how big of a deal this would be, one. And then two, by including a, for lack of better term, a firefighter and police GI bill concept, does that how does that hurt potentially the competitive nature of what the Guard offers now? So two two sides of the same question.

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: Alright. Thank you for the question. I can actually answer both of those fairly intelligently. My my

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: It's the public safety. We're we're fairly intelligent is what passes around here. So we're good.

[Katie Zazitskaya, President, National Guard Association of Connecticut]: This is why we're in here.

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: First of all, my name is Daniel DiBascuali. I am the vice president of the National Guard Association of Connecticut, but I also am a serving member of the Connecticut Army National Guard. Part of the reason I can answer that pretty confidently is I'm currently the company commander of the recruiting company. So first, as far as the question about cost, I looked at it before we came, and I general Yvonne alluded to it earlier. When the bill was first passed back in the eighties, they looked at tuition and tuition as a cost benefit, but we didn't incorporate fees. Back then, the fees weren't substantial. I don't know if it's the institutions or what we're doing, circumventing some of it, but, I looked at it. So Yukon, it's fairly differential. Right? You're talking $17,000 for tuition, roughly $5,000, upwards of $8,000 in in fees. But when you get to Eastern, Central, Southern, and Western, the fees are nearly as much as the tuition. So ECSU semester tuition's about $7,000. The mandatory fees is 6,700. So and then that carries on central, western, $353,500 in tuition and 3,000 in fees, just about. Those are mandatory fees. That doesn't include room and board. That doesn't include your meal plan, and that doesn't include all the other fees outside of those traditional.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: So under the forgive me for not knowing this, but under our current structure, room and board is not covered by the guard bill. So so it's right now, it is it's outright tuition. So everything else from books to fees and all that is on, including, Charter Oak.

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: So and go ahead.

[Katie Zazitskaya, President, National Guard Association of Connecticut]: Charter Oak is considered a public school, whereas the tuition labor is consider is only, excuse me. Charter Oak is considered a private school, whereas the other schools are considered public.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Really?

[Katie Zazitskaya, President, National Guard Association of Connecticut]: Even So the waiver only applies to the directional, you know, Yukon and the directional schools. K. So we are able to use GI Bill towards the private schools and some tuition assistance. Some of the schools are considered yellow ribbon. So there are some benefits, but most of our recruits do go to the public

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: schools. And to answer your second question about the impact on recruiting service members if we were to expand this bill to law enforcement and firefighters, I don't think it would have a negative impact at all. Actually, it'd probably be more beneficial. And then the cost benefit is there because you have two diff you have one individual serving in two different entities that both offer the same benefit. Right? So you're not paying for extra people to go. It's the same one individual. A lot of a lot of people do join the guard in an effort to advance their ability to get these these jobs, especially in law enforcement. I can speak myself. At 24 years old, I was in a dead end job, and I joined the guard to help potentially get a a law enforcement job. I ended up with a full time job in the guard instead. But we often enlist these individuals who are looking to use this as a stepping stone. The other reason it's not really a a detractor for our enlistment is 95% of our guardsmen are are part time. So they still look for Sure. A a full time job. So we do a lot of both, a lot of both. And I know, major general Yvonne alluded to it earlier. Part of it too would be, you know, with the the law enforcement or the firefighters not being able to or, you know, not necessarily be able to hire them right out of high school. We can bridge the gap. Yeah. Members can join the guard. They can work on training skills. If they go to the military police school or any of our firefighter schools, we can give them a lot of the the training and education and certifications that they need that would help them in getting a career in law enforcement. And then that added benefit of the the tuition and fees being waived would help them, you know, advance their career on both sides because now they have because education goes a long way in the military as far as promotion. It also I know law enforcement is starting to look at that as far

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: as Right.

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: Promotability and stuff.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: So for comparison's sake, for the Connecticut tuition waiver to be in effect for the guard is what's the because we you heard probably heard us talk a little bit earlier about when it would kick in under this bill for police or firefighters. What is the the commitment level for that to kick in at the garden?

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: So they just have to enlist to a contract. So our contracts are generally it's it's an eight year commitment, but they're structured differently.

[Ronnell A. Higgins, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP)]: Could be

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: a six by two. Could be a three by five. So it's

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: it's an immediate benefit?

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: Immediate. Yeah. So all they have to do essentially is enlist. And once they're enlist enlisted, they can apply for the tuition waiver, and they just have to stay in what we deem good standing. And then commanders at at the the lowest level will sign off on their tuition waiver. And then it gets processed with our education education office, and then it's their their tuition is waived. Okay. There it's not a perfect system. Sure. As representative Dju Van Carlos said, like, you found out after the fact, and I believe actually Yeah. Your son might have been in my unit back when he first joined, to be honest. I recognize the name.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: So Big name.

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: Yep. Absolutely. With a last name like Deepa Squali, like Yeah.

[David Genetti, Program Chair, Emergency Management & Homeland Security, Post University]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Daniel DiBascuali, Vice President, National Guard Association of Connecticut; CTARNG Recruiting Company Commander]: Fair enough. Right? So Yeah. It's an immediate benefit. It's just a matter of, you know, the paperwork.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Great. Okay. Very helpful. You know, maybe we get creative, and we'll weave or waive the fees if you join the guard and the fire service. So, you know, you get get a free meal or something like that. So DG.

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Thank you, mister chair. Just another thing too that's disturbing is it was it was $5,000 about that fee about six six years ago, and now it's six seven years ago. Now it's 67 to 7,000. So it's kind of a it's a backdoor way of actually raising tuition without raising tuition. So it's a very that should be on the tuition end, not on the not on the end of that person that's willing to sacrifice for the country. So okay. Alright. Thank you. We'll work on it. Thanks for your time.

[Katie Zazitskaya, President, National Guard Association of Connecticut]: Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Is there anybody in the room that wish to testify that's in the room today? Yeah. Would you please come forward and state your name for the record? Anybody else in the room that wish to testify? Alright. And, once you finish, we'll, go to those that are online. So thank you for joining us today.

[Unidentified AV technician]: Thank you, sir. My name is Tucker Salls. I'm the legislative liaison for the Connecticut military department. So committee co chairs, senator Gaston, representative Boyd, vice chair, senator Slapp, representative Gigi Bon Gigi Boncarlo, ranking members, senator Ciccarella, and representative Howard, and distinguished members of the Public Safety and Security Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of HB fifty fifty forty six, enact supporting firefighter and police officer recruitment and retention. I don't plan to, go back over what, General Yvonne already spoke about.

[Tucker Salls, Legislative Liaison, Connecticut Military Department]: I just wanted to answer a few of the questions as they've come up throughout the, committee process. So one of the questions was what kind of fees are we looking at at the colleges? So they're labeled as infrastructure fees, student activity fees, technology fees, general fees. These are the most important part of the bill would be that they are the mandatory fees. It's not, oh, I choose to live on campus or I don't choose to live on campus. It is it doesn't matter who you are. You are paying these no matter what. They're essentially part of the tuition. And, again, as as the price of these has gone up, the tuition waiver is no longer covering no longer covers that. So if you have to pay $7,000, it doesn't matter that the other 7 was was waived. 7 is still is is often too much, especially for junior junior officers, junior soldiers just coming out of their enlistment or having just enlisted. In fact, on a on a personal note, I I went through the the Yukon ROTC program while I was while I was a student at Eastern. I was on the federal scholarship, so my tuition, we fees were both paid. I didn't know what, the the Guard guys were were complaining about at the time. And I I had a friend, when I was a freshman who was actually, like like you had mentioned, sir, surprised by the fees. He got a $6,000 bill at the end of the year he wasn't expecting. He he ended up having to leave the ROTC program. He left school for

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: a little while. He had

[Tucker Salls, Legislative Liaison, Connecticut Military Department]: to come back to work. I think he was able to finally get his degree, but he left the ROTC program. So now that's that's something he wasn't able to do because that extra time that would have required. He had to he had to do the work. He lived off campus. He he expected, as I said in the by the National Guard, that it is free college tuition. So I you also mentioned a few small changes to the bill that would really clarify the stated intent. We were really, really excited when the governor came out and said that he wants to to waive the tuition fees for police and fire because we looked and we saw, oh my, that that's that's our tuition waiver, and we're so happy that police and fire are involved. A lot of our people are also police and fire. There's a lot of really great synergy there. They're all a massive part of the, Connecticut's, emergency response apparatus. So line 46, in section one, all you'd have to do is bracket the word extension, after the word any. Line 37, bracket the word extension after the word any. Line 73, add the word and mandatory after tuition. And then that legislation should meet the governors and the and the legislators' stated intent of what they want the bill to do. It's a very complicated, very tricky statute. So I I know that that's that's what they were trying to do when they they wrote it. The last number I wanted to give you is 90% of guardsmen live in state. We pulled their home records. So these are people who are being educated in Connecticut, being trained in Connecticut, and 90% of them stay in Connecticut. I know that can be a real issue. We have some of the best schools in the country, but there's a brain drain. You you get educated in Connecticut, and you move to Florida. And now Florida gets that that that employee, that guardsman, the same with Georgia, wherever. Guardsmen in Connecticut stay in Connecticut. The vast majority of them do. So that's one other thing I really wanted to give you as a as a value add of this legislation, and I'm happy to answer any further questions the committee might have.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Yes. Representative Heffern, good to see you. Thanks. I've been hiding over here fine. I love your soup, by the way. Oh, high praise from you. Thank you, mister chairman. Hello, Tucker.

[Captain Josh Patberg, Connecticut State Police]: I get you. Sorry.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Just wanted to say thank you for your advocacy. I know you took me aside, and I spoke to the general about this. And I was shocked when my father died. So you guys get free tuition. No idea that the fees weren't included in how how extensive they were. So here we are. And it's it's mostly due to you and and and you're educating the committee members and and legislator. So thank you very much.

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: Thank you, sir.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you. Any additional comments, questions from members of the committee or online? Seeing none, thank you so much for joining us, Tucker, and best of luck to you, and be safe out on the roads.

[Tucker Salls, Legislative Liaison, Connecticut Military Department]: Thank you, sir.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Anybody else in the, gallery that would like to testify that's here in person? We do not wanna miss anyone. So please feel free to come up, and state your name for the record. Any, other person in the, chambers that would like to speak, please, come forward now. Alright. Seeing no, we're gonna now move online. So Frank D'Angelo from AFSCME, council four, local thirteen seventy six. Officer, please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.

[Lieutenant Frank D’Angelo, Derby Police Department; AFSCME Council 4 Local 1376]: Hi. My name is Frank D'Angelo. I am a member of Derby Police Department. I've been there for, thirteen years. I am the local vice president for the union, and I am currently I'm a lieutenant currently assigned to the administrative administrative division in which some of my duties involve hiring, recruiting, and training. Before I get into talking about the recruitment and retention bill, I just wanna make sure that I just I just go over this real quick that I am and always will be in favor of education. Personally, I was actually an educator before I became a police officer. I was an English teacher and tutor for about three years. I just wanna talk about the the recruitment retention bill. A lot of departments already have education incentives. My department in particular already has an education incentive in which we we offer tuition reimbursement for colleges at the at the University of New Haven price point. And additionally, with my position where I am reviewing applicants that come in, a lot of our applicants already have college education. A lot of departments also have a 60 credit requirement or a military service in lieu of requirement when they are pursuing jobs. So where I see this bill attempting to do something for recruitment, it doesn't really do much for retention since a lot of officers that are already getting hired or even have invested in a criminal justice degree. I I'm I wanna make a recommendation in terms of the bill where instead of just college for our officers, you should extend it to college for the sons and daughters of active officers. When you think about, you know, pensions and retirements, we talk about that we've been talking about those all day. Well, if if everybody's trying to race to a finish line, everybody's trying to figure out how they can get to do do your twenty five years and get out, how do we retain people that have twenty five years of experience, but maybe be able to retire at 46, 47 years old, and then become one. They retire early, and they are taking from the pension collecting for the pension for forty, fifty years. But also they're taking their experience, their knowledge, their skills, and leaving and taking that institutional knowledge and and institutional knowledge experience away from the department. So my my first recommendation is is obviously changing the the education aspect of it to include the children of of active officers. Because also when you think about it, officers' families, their kids, they're making sacrifices as well. You know, police op being a police officer is twenty four seven jobs. So they're missing holidays. They're missing birthdays. Everyone has these sacrifices. This is a sacrifice that repays the family of the active officers. The second is I think you guys need to reevaluate looking at the drop plan. The drop plan has certain requirements that require you to be 55 years old. Removing that requirement, letting an officer who can retire at 52, 53 get involved with the drop plan, that's a that's a retention initiative. That I'm sorry. That's that's a retention incentive that I think the people I've talked to that I work with say that that could get me to stay. So whereas I know you're trying to attract new officers, but we also have to talk about keeping officers that are there that already have an education, that already have these things that are being offered. How do we get the officers that are leaving too soon or going to different departments to stay at their department? So I understand everybody's trying to get out. I'm not gonna take up too much more of your time. I just wanna say thank you. And if you have any questions or if you wanna discuss this, I'm always open for a conversation. And thank you, guys.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, officer D'Angelo, for your comments on today and your testimony. Do we have any questions, comments coming from members of the committee? Okay. Seeing none, thank you so much. We appreciate your testimony. Have a wonderful day. Thanks. Yes. At this time, we'll have Greg Allard from Connecticut Ambulance Association. Mister president, please speak now. We appreciate you.

[Greg Allard, President, Connecticut Ambulance Association]: Alright. Well, thank you, senator Gassen, representative Boyd, senator Ciccarella, and representative Howard, and distinguished members of the public safety committee. I appreciate, allowing me to testify today before you. As the Connecticut Ambulance Association, we appreciate the intent behind this legislation and recognition that Connecticut's public safety workforce is under strain. Recruitment and retention challenges are not abstract concerns. They're real, and they directly affect the safety and well-being of our communities. While we support the bill, we respectfully ask that the committee amend house bill 5,046 to include EMS within its scope. EMS clinicians are health care providers, but we're also frontline public safety professionals. In many emergencies, EMS arise first. The the care provided in those first critical minutes often determines outcomes. Our role is not secondary. It is essential. Like our partners in fire and law enforcement, EMS agencies across Connecticut are facing serious workforce shortages. Agencies are struggling to recruit new clinicians into the profession and to retain experienced personnel who are drawn to other sectors of health care that can get often higher pay pay, more predictable schedules, and less exposure to risk. The job itself has become more demanding. Call volumes continue to rise. Complexity of medical cases has increased. Clinicians face long shifts, mandatory overtime, emotional trauma, and the cumulative stress that comes from caring for people on their worst days. Burnout is not uncommon. Turnover has real consequences. When positions remain unfilled, response times can increase, remaining staff carry heavy workloads, and the entire emergency response system feels the strain. At the same time, many EMS organizations operate under tight reimbursement structures that limit their ability to offer competitive wages and benefits. And I know that was talked about earlier today. That financial reality makes it even more difficult to compete in a challenging labor market. Excluding EMS from recruitment and retention initiatives create unintended imbalance within our public safety system. Police, fire, and EMS do not operate in isolation. We function as an integrated response team. When one component is weakened, the effectiveness effectiveness of the entire system is compromised. Supporting one segment while leaving out another doesn't strengthen public safety as a whole. By amending the bill to include EMS in any recruitment programs, incentives, or benefits established under this act, the committee would acknowledge the full spectrum of EMS or emergency responders who protect Connecticut's residents every day. Thank you for your time and your consideration and your continued commitment to the safety of Connecticut's communities.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions, comments from the committee? Representative Boyd.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Greg, thank you for testifying, and I also just appreciate the work you're you're putting in behind the scenes for us to try to quantify how many folks are we talking about. So I just wanna put that on the record and thank you for that.

[Greg Allard, President, Connecticut Ambulance Association]: Thank you. Appreciate it.

[Chief L.J. Fusaro, President, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)]: Thank

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: you. Any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, thank you so much for joining us on today. I believe we have John DiCarlo from the University of New Haven, professor and director of master's program in criminal justice. Thanks for joining us. Okay. We're now gonna move on to number 16, Miles Leframino from AFSCME, counsel four local fifteen sixty five, correction officer. Please okay. We'll stand at ease for a second as he log on.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Can you guys hear me?

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: We can certainly hear you now. Thank

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry about that. I just got moved up to panelist in here.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: We can see you, Andrew.

[Representative Pat Boyd, House Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: As long

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: as you guys can hear me, I'm a perfect. Good afternoon, senator Gaston, representative Boyd, ranking members, and members of the public safety and security committee. My name is Miles La Femina, and I am proud member of AFSCME, council four local fifteen sixty five, representing Connecticut's dedicated correctional professionals who will work every day inside our state prisons and correctional facilities. The intent behind the House Bill fifty forty six, supporting recruitment and retention and public safety work is important, but, respectfully, the bill leaves out one of the most critical public safety workforces in our state, the correction officers. Every day in our state, correction officers operate in dangerous and volatile environments in Connecticut, supervising violent offenders, having them to manage high risk events, and maintain safety inside our facilities, work that majority of the public does not see or handle day to day. If the goal of this legislation is to recruit and retain public safety officials, then correction officers should be part of that conversation. Our facilities continue to face staffing shortages, a problem that has only grown in recent years. There are 220 staff eligible to retire through July 1. The Department of Correction has indicated to the union that they intend to put through three classes of a 100 officers this calendar year. With the retirements we've had thus far, plus the additional potential 220 staff eligible, the department would only net 80 officers this year. Adding to this challenge, our workforce is aging and a wave of experienced officers is approaching retirement. With few and far with few too far new hires ready to step in. Without action now, we risk losing decades of institutional knowledge with no one's prepared to pass the baton. In turn, it leads to mandatory overtime as well as increased workplace stress, the kind of the exact kind of pressure this bill is trying to address. Correction officers are sworn public safety professionals that face assaults on the job, work nights, holidays, and forced overtime. The physical and mental toll of this work is real and measurable. National research has consistently shown that correction officers have a significantly lower life expectancy than our general population. With higher rates of heart disease and other stress related health conditions tied directly to the demands of the job, quite frankly, you cannot have a serious public safety recruitment strategy in Connecticut while leaving correction officers on the sidelines. This is not about taking anything away from police or firefighters. It is about making sure the men and women who keep our correctional facilities secure are treated with the same level of respect and support. On behalf of AFSCME Council four local fifteen sixty five, we respectfully urge the committee to amend house bill five zero four six to include correction officers among the eligible public safety personnel. Thank you for your time and for your continued support of Connecticut's frontline public safety workforce.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you, representative Howard.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Hi, Miles. Just one quick question. How often are and I I just generally, are people being held over correction officers being held over for their shift?

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Daily.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Every single day in the state?

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Every single day, process date, there's multiple holds.

[Representative Greg Howard, House Ranking Member]: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: No worries, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: There's a question on Zoom. Representative DiCaprio.

[Representative DiCaprio (remote)]: Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, mister LaFermana, for coming coming before us. Can you just go over your your numbers again about how many COs we have now, how many are eligible to retire, and, you know, what the and what we're looking at. You you said there was three classes, you know, coming up in the future.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Yes. So currently, we have on the list for eligible retirees for or on or before July 1, 220 eligible members of the Department of Correction. Obviously, that includes all the promoted individuals throughout the rank and file. But, effectively, when you retire from the top, they gotta fill down from below. So that will impact the correction officers within the state. With that being said, the department of correction has stated that they intend on putting three classes of 100 officers through the academy, which at 220 retirees with the 300 through this academy this year, we would only net 80 this calendar year.

[Representative DiCaprio (remote)]: Okay. So you would only net 80 with with the with with those three classes?

[Representative Michael DiGiovancarlo, House Vice Chair]: Yes,

[Representative DiCaprio (remote)]: sir. Okay. What is the total number of COs? Do you have that?

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: I I do not have that right in front of me. I can probably get that for you guys within the next day or so if you need it.

[Representative DiCaprio (remote)]: Could you could you provide that? I I would request that if you could to the committee.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Yes, sir.

[Representative DiCaprio (remote)]: Alright. And thank you for that, and thank you for your testimony. Thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Representative Quinn.

[Representative Quinn]: Thank you, mister chair. And just building off of what representative DiCaprio was saying, Are those numbers of what you're putting through an academy, all that you have funding for? Or is it, all that have applied for it? I'm trying to figure out what the what the issue is and and fully understand your math calculations that this puts you in a Don't in a shortage situation.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: So it's certainly, a bureaucratic situation, if you will. The I'm not privy to knowing where the agency stands with funding. I do know that they've requested, three classes of 100 through DAS. However, whether there's a lack of

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: We're having difficulty hearing you online. But

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: About 13 to 15 there was

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you so very much. I believe that we won't be able to sufficiently respond because we didn't hear all of what you said. Thank you so much, though, for joining us.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Applicants.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you so much. We appreciate it. I know that you endeavor to get some information to representative DiCaprio. We'd appreciate if you're able to do that. At this time, you're experiencing technical difficulties online, and, unfortunately, we have to move on to the next person on the agenda. So thank you for joining us. At this time, we have, Professor John DiCarlo from the University of New Haven. I see that you're online. Can we please pull the professor up, please? Thank you. Professor, if you would unmute, we would appreciate that, and we can go ahead and get you started.

[Professor John DeCarlo, University of New Haven]: Thank you very much for having me here today. Quite an array of wonderful, interesting, perspectives, and, I'd like to read my testimony into the record, and I'll do that now. Honorable members of the Public Safety and Security committee. My name is John DeCarlo. I'm a retired police chief with thirty four years of service to the Brantford Police Department here in Connecticut. I'm currently a professor and director of the master's program in criminal justice at the University of New Haven. I'm testifying on behalf of the University of New Haven today regarding HB fifty forty six, an act supporting firefighter and police officer recruitment and retention. This bill would provide free tuition at Connecticut public colleges for eligible police officers, firefighters, and fire academy students. Our concern at the University of New Haven with HB fifty forty six as it is written is straightforward. By limiting the benefit to public institutions only, the bill creates a powerful financial incentive for officers to leave programs like ours at the University of New Haven, including our number one ranked nationally ranked, rather, online masters of science in criminal justice degree, and our top ranked forensic science and forensic and fire science programs for less specialized alternatives. Limiting choice is not in the interest of the officers, the towns, the firefighters, or the committees communities rather, I'm sorry, that they serve. We urge the committee to consider a portable benefit, a voucher that follows the individual to any accredited Connecticut institution. That approach achieves the bill's goals without disadvantaging Connecticut's nationally recognized private programs. University of New Haven takes supporting the first responder community very seriously. For many decades, we have offered a 50% tuition discount to police officers, firefighters, and other first responders. Recently, the university added a 100% tuition discount for police officers and firefighters and other municipal employees from the city of West Haven, our host town. In in this current academic year alone, University of New Haven extended 284 tuition discounts to sworn police officers and firefighters representing a total institutional discount value of $1,196,000. To reiterate, the intent of this proposal is admirable. UNH fully supports professional development for police and fire personnel In addition to degree programs that we have provided, we also, have offered professional development opportunities for first responders. These include command colleges, which is a training for new and aspiring police chiefs, de escalation training for police that now with congressional support facilitated by representative DeLauro and senators Blumenthal and Murphy is extending to first responders and mental health, professionals as well. We give promotional classes for police sergeants and detectives, and we do cutting edge research in criminal justice and policing. The university remains committed to working with the governor and the legislature to achieve the goal of this proposed legislation. We stand ready to participate in future discussions regarding it. And I thank you for your consideration of this, and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

[Chief Bud Myers, Town of Coventry; President, Connecticut Fire Chiefs Association]: Thank you

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: so much. Any questions from members of the committee? Alrighty. Okay. Alright. The great representative from, New Haven, representative Palello. I knew I wasn't gonna skip you. Thank you.

[Representative Al Paolillo Jr.]: I I appreciate that, and I'll I'll try to condense the question as well. John, thank you for your testimony today. Can you just, go into a little bit you've talked about command college and professional development, some of the opportunities that UNH has made available, to police officers, detectives, folks, ascending through the ranks in law enforcement and also on the fire side as well. If you can just go into detail a little bit there.

[Professor John DeCarlo, University of New Haven]: Sure. Our command colleges are given on a yearly basis, and we we take in students from across the country, and we give free tuition to those command colleges from for police officers from Connecticut. We we teach management, leadership, and other very valuable, innovative subjects to the members of the police colleges. We also run the Center for Policing Innovation and Research, and, we provide, monthly trainings on topical elements for police officers, command staffs, and other people that work for police departments. University of New Haven also does really vital research in policing. Many of our faculty members are policing experts, and we have published recently papers in police use of force, contagion, fire, and we make those, we make the data from those reports, available to, all police departments, in Connecticut. In addition, we assist by doing research for police departments for areas that they need quantitative data and other things that are hard to figure out or to prove or to facilitate in their communities. So the university has been a member of the the policing community and the fire community for many, many years. And I think to to to stop to to not include the private the nine private colleges, including the University of New Haven, in this program would be to to put in danger the the very essence of what we teach, which is police management. Our master's degree is, again, rated number one in the country. And it would be it would it would severely be impacted if private colleges were not included in in this equation.

[Representative Al Paolillo Jr.]: Thank you for that. I I know we've talked a lot about retention today, and I think you're bringing to the table around also retention but professional development. And so, in a command college or in those types of environments, you mentioned leadership. I would assume for folks, becoming supervisors for the first time or becoming detectives for the first time, you're going through, various different course loads. Can you can you just talk about a little bit more in-depth what that entails and and what the focus is there?

[Professor John DeCarlo, University of New Haven]: Sure. We do it in in a in a multifaceted way. We we give actual academic classes in leadership and police management. And with that, we teach the theory underpinning what we're doing. We teach the history of how management and leadership have evolved in The United States and how it applies specifically to Connecticut. We, we offer the opportunities for police officers in our programs in Connecticut to interface with, police officers and and leaders from, other communities. Obviously, we we have, we we have police chiefs and command staffs from many other states in the program. And so when we when we teach that, we're teaching not only we we not only the the essence of management and leadership, but the application of it. And we in the command college offer a very low cost alternative, a free alternative to police officers in Connecticut, to programs such as the National Academy at Quantico, which is put on by the FBI, the police officer I'm sorry, not the police officer standards and trainings, but the the police police forum, which is the Police Executive Research Forum, and they have a school that they give in Boston. It's a three week long school. But both of these are either hard to get into for tier d agencies. Many of the many of the police departments in Connecticut are smaller agencies. There are four or five big ones. So to get seats in these advanced programs, you you have to either wait a long time or pay a lot of money in the area of perf that's about $12,000 for three weeks. We make those comparable programs available for free. And we believe that we are a part of the solution to the problems of criminal justice in Connecticut and in The United States as a whole. And we want to policing and public safety are arguably one of the most important promises of government in The United States, and we we aspire at the university to make that operate as efficiently as it could by educating its practitioners. And we have a long history of success, and many of the police chiefs that are sitting in Connecticut now and have retired are alums of the university. So we're we're part we wanna be part of the solution. We wanna continue to have a seat at the table and bring advanced level training to police practitioners in the state of Connecticut.

[Representative Al Paolillo Jr.]: Thank you, John. Thank you for answering those questions, and, mister chair, thank you for your indulgence.

[Senator Herron Gaston, Senate Chair, Public Safety & Security Committee]: Thank you. Any other questions online or currently? Seeing none. Thank you so very much for joining us on today. We appreciate your testimony. At this time, we have, mister Cotto from the Police Office Association POAC. If you don't mind accepting the, the invitation, you have to accept the invitation in order for you to join us online, noticing that you're rejecting it. So would you please accept the invitation as panelist to join, and then we'll be able to get your testimony. Alrighty. Anybody else online anybody else online that wish to testify at this time? Anyone else online wishing to testify at this time? Alright. Anybody in the chambers wishing to testify at this time? Alright. Seeing no, we move to adjourn. Thank you so very much and see you all again on Thursday.