[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6633410,"mediaKeyId","2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d","parentId",2664463,"title","Fair‑rent commission opponents tell Judiciary Committee UAPA would add costly formality","audioSeconds",5048,"startMs",2437000,"endMs",7485000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d&start=2437&end=7485","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d/thumbnail_2437000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6633410/Connecticut/Fairrent-commission-opponents-tell-Judiciary-Committee-UAPA-would-add-costly-formality","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633410-d253f9326ac84704740bc9b0b8ac6b3f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163293&Signature=MreNh7q8YnVmcxOBh~AFhbPehRDXC-1I9g6yLcU5ZpwdimbOpeWBR7kwEgEQ3-FiDxnvrGcfIFg2ir6iQ~HHYeVlBQQDrSCv10L~~lT-sHLsyShGM7a8woWpfK-EQ7d8KIG4efM29xYQMMiBhLHZTDZehHxI7ReGXcjeot6M~vjN7vblcQLE2gQd3mXKwNIoiC4K2DljpQInLJrVOXQ58bHt7lNmLsbwjsuQdwpx~7jUVJ4ZrsPPBw3LXs12AtYmcGvjMuQCnFssjHPlJ5J-8f~skgMnM7mKVxUyUWZrwz~ZcXTDsvXwVf1zbwN0uFis88LTKyE9cTG2SbNe9OVenA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature - Judiciary","date","2025-03-17T22:01:12.35Z","article","Hartford, Conn. — Dozens of fair‑housing advocates, municipal staff and lawyers told the Judiciary Committee on March 17 that House Bill 71‑40 would impose unnecessary formal procedures on municipal fair‑rent commissions by making them subject to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.

Speakers including Daryl Fennell, a longtime attorney and fair‑rent commissioner; Dahlia Romano of the Connecticut Fair Housing Center; Rafael Podolsky of Connecticut Legal Services; and representatives from New Haven’s commission argued the UAPA is designed for state agencies with full‑time professional staff, not locally appointed volunteer boards. They said mandating UAPA contested‑case procedures would create heavy legal formality — notice pleading, offers of proof, objections, transcription duties and potentially attorney‑fee exposure on appeal — that most towns cannot absorb.

“The fair rent commission is a board of equity made up of local volunteers,” said Rafael Podolsky. “There’s no problem in the way they’re operating that needs this level of judicialization.”

Daryl Fennell, who has served on a municipal fair‑rent commission, warned that borrowing the UAPA’s contested‑case apparatus would import collateral statutory consequences — including expanded appeal rights and fee provisions — and could discourage volunteer participation and spur costly transcription and record‑keeping requirements. He said most appeals to Superior Court are handled today by sending transcripts and documents and that full UAPA treatment would be disproportionate.

Municipal officials and housing attorneys said commissions already keep records and run hearings in public, and that the bill would make hearings more adversarial and expensive and could delay resolution of rent disputes. Connecticut Legal Services and the Fair Housing Center said the bill is unnecessary and would deter access to dispute resolution for tenants.

Proponents of the bill have said making the record requirements explicit would assist appellate review. Committee members asked witnesses whether clarifying statutory record duties could be written in a narrower way to preserve volunteer boards’ practicality while giving Superior Court an adequate record on appeal.

The committee will consider those drafting options in the days ahead.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/17 Judiciary Committee Public Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","Housing advocates, municipal staff and lawyers urged the Judiciary Committee to reject House Bill 71‑40, warning that applying the state Administrative Procedure Act to municipal fair‑rent commissions would impose unnecessary costs, legalism and staffing demands on volunteer boards.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",15631,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6633415,"Commission urges committee to implement racial and ethnic impact statements with clearer timelines and procedures",745,1425000,2170000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d&start=1425&end=2170","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d/thumbnail_1425000.jpg","/articles/6633415/Connecticut/Commission-urges-committee-to-implement-racial-and-ethnic-impact-statements-with-clearer-timelines-and-procedures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633415-ba1e8bec112e65693de6a58613696890/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163293&Signature=bbdt43SsJqzj8tk3g9b2yaVKhP1LdCDbn8e9gaf0e-UQ3J7axMqXZg3WPxD642XUmc9GP1QTN~q7mPzt~jYIy3nu8Dxwf7M8ZWaBBkQ14D9pyEZgC0vNrwDg~hOPGGGAndLx4p4nTD69woosyJ25bT87iHihdh0LFxPlk-dCL8YDZILp7eoJk5gpcVrEOxXCLOcCycKIS0F0NOUnaAhmvt6N8O07PkiOkzq2uYgQ06juuBY-GM0bHrxTWGlXH-~rQlW2Fn12AoH8ZXPgMIKMCie0zs1rnwEGl6jmxXeAbxBOaBDUQk1ym-EHRBZEqtsDcC49gtUsOBgenR8pOokUBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hartford, Conn. — The Commission on Racial Equity in Public Health asked the Judiciary Committee on March 17 to advance legislation (referenced as SB 15‑06 during testimony) that would operationalize “racial and ethnic impact statements” (RICE) already created in statute but not yet implemented.

Priscilla Trumptey Goodwin, executive director of the Commission, testified that Public Act 18‑78 established the tool to predict how proposed legislation would affect racial and ethnic disparities, but that the statute was never implemented because there are no formal rules and staff assigned to produce the statements.

“RICE has yet to be implemented,” Goodwin said. “We have recommended three changes to the statute — timeline, process and access to information — that are necessary for successful implementation.”

The bill proposes shortening the request turnaround for analysts (from 10 days to two days within the joint filing deadline), creating a process to memorialize procedures in a letter from the Commission to legislative leaders and giving analysts statutory access to agency data, Goodwin said. She acknowledged the shorter timeline reduces request flexibility but argued it ensures analysts have adequate time ahead of the legislative file‑copy deadline to prepare meaningful statements.

Representative Fishbein and other committee members pressed witnesses on whether a shortened timeline would cut the number of requests and on whether amendments should be eligible for re‑review. Goodwin and other witnesses said the Commission intends to collaborate with caucuses in rulemaking and that Colorado’s experience suggests an upfront, bipartisan working process — and an optional update for amended bills — can address feasibility concerns.

The committee’s discussion focused on balancing the need for timely, usable analysis with procedural flexibility for legislators. Several members said they want to preserve opportunities to seek statements on amendments while ensuring analysts have enough time to produce high‑quality assessments.

The Commission recommended using the 2026 session to pilot RICE reports, finalize rules and ensure staff capacity. Committee members said they will continue to work with the Commission on the language and timeline.

Source: Testimony by Priscilla Trumptey Goodwin, Commission on Racial Equity in Public Health; committee Q&A, March 17, 2025.","The Commission on Racial Equity in Public Health asked the Judiciary Committee to pass a bill (SB 15‑06) to operationalize racial and ethnic impact statements for legislation, recommending tighter timelines, a collaborative rulemaking process with legislative caucuses and statutory authority for staff access to agency data.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6633420,"Supporters push shorter wait, fewer gatekeepers for Connecticut sentence‑mod law",3231,2685000,5916000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d&start=2685&end=5916","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d/thumbnail_2685000.jpg","/articles/6633420/Connecticut/Supporters-push-shorter-wait-fewer-gatekeepers-for-Connecticut-sentencemod-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633420-49abfa426f3daa57bb2ccc099d4517a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163293&Signature=cWtwC9deVs1JMWrWWCBOp1O3i1xZXlhJNolLzHsFu-xp1ymTONXdbuuIs6bNd9-IHvr-NGvCQwnhAbGme~ehpZ2qzdT1kufGIRx9eXGaA~-hWymmrmpBgT6IZsgsEQLpYxGZf~bHzWV9k7PT8jRDJT~LlVc8z18G4glv~dWeAYvpunEwUuCCbE45wuOZYodxuNippBRjLbJo-HzWuxp5G8qzyivl6CnvvRX9vQO4tuANIJQRYYB4QS74MjWdPmr1kss2-XmaieOBpDvGXOnTvtsztjrraJFZN4JRuLsg-S6IynCSga~3m5tH0DYcyMOACHhL5VbR7D9VxUcR0d8bFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hartford, Conn. — Dozens of advocates, formerly incarcerated people and national groups on March 17 urged the Judiciary Committee to endorse Senate Bill 13‑27, a proposed change to Connecticut’s sentence‑modification system that would shorten the wait to reapply after a denial and broaden eligibility for review.

The bill would allow people who have been denied a resentencing application to reapply after two years instead of five; it would remove a prosecutor’s ability to block some post‑plea petitions; and it would make people serving mandatory minimum sentences eligible for judicial resentencing — changes backers said would correct longstanding inequities.

“We must establish a system that effectively provides individuals who have received treatment the opportunity for a second look and a second chance for redemption,” testified Gaylord Stalters, who said he benefited from a 2022 sentence modification after two decades wrongfully incarcerated. “The law that changed allowed the steps I took in prison to come to the forefront.”

Formerly incarcerated men and women, reentry advocates and academic experts described examples where survivors of trauma, people who completed extensive programming, and people who were wrongfully convicted were blocked from relief by procedural rules or mandatory minimums. They argued the change would not give automatic relief; instead, it would create more opportunities to bring evidence of rehabilitation, post‑conviction developments and new evidence to judges.

Supporters also included researchers and national groups who cited recidivism research showing low reoffense rates for people released after lengthy terms and urged courts to have discretion to consider new information. “These reforms allow courts to consider the totality of a person’s life, not only the decisions made decades earlier,” a representative of a national sentencing‑reform group told the committee.

Prosecutors and the Division of Criminal Justice raised operational concerns: potential increases in hearings, impacts on victim outreach and strains on courtroom resources if applications are filed more frequently. State’s Attorney Jack Doyle told the committee his offices have already seen a large growth in applications since Connecticut changed its law in 2021 and said prosecutors are worried about the frequency and logistics of contacting victims and handling additional hearings.

Multiple witnesses suggested there are pragmatic compromises: narrower eligibility rules, better notice options for victims, and clearer standards for courts. Supporters said those implementation details can be refined in committee, but urged lawmakers to advance the core reforms as a matter of equity and public safety.

If enacted, SB 13‑27 would change the cadence of post‑conviction review in Connecticut and affect thousands of people held under long sentences.","Formerly incarcerated advocates, reentry organizers and national groups urged lawmakers to let more people seek sentence review sooner — and to remove prosecutorial gatekeeping and mandatory‑minimum exclusions from Connecticut’s sentence‑mod statute.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6633424,"Connecticut advocates press Judiciary Committee to let trauma inform sentencing for domestic violence survivors",8757,284000,9041000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d&start=284&end=9041","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664463-8d2b9cab973cee672bbc2ba0795fda1d/thumbnail_284000.jpg","/articles/6633424/Connecticut/Connecticut-advocates-press-Judiciary-Committee-to-let-trauma-inform-sentencing-for-domestic-violence-survivors","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633424-89c22e6f4c9c1261c63a9d4170efb991/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163293&Signature=hpRCAI7KA3XrFtS2uXhlb70EPJpuMv1SPAeFT6ZbMVZB4QE1H2BUc-5FeYeQgXislHDMhwTUyHEnCBTSzACh6CFWqdMP2QMIIRbV5UPBSQIaW85RIn81ivf2kI5g0ze4NIbvaDG4x87b9Mxi9fZXPjeRpij0GxJs~yR5hgiLF2qGwllxcXz-nKOJsBcVEQfUBYBY7M1vRWOGXMDN2NS6krI0qlKb8prezIhtESKq1m3tKPL0NkaJzTDToYA55ASm8yYciov5P8tiukDRBYSlyZQj-YewlpgOYdeYpKavavjBPumci8TrjwJdt0dgWD-~v-vWBHAhrC8LNFwBRd~CFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hartford, Conn. — Advocates for survivors of gender‑based violence urged the Judiciary Committee on March 17 to pass Senate Bill 15‑02, a measure that would allow judges and the parole board to consider domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking or human trafficking as a contributing factor when reviewing or modifying criminal sentences.

Supporters — including the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, She Leads Justice, Drop LWOP New England and the ACLU of Connecticut — told the committee the bill would give judges and other decision makers a formal way to weigh trauma and coercive control in cases where an individual’s offense was tied to their victimization.

“Survivors can sometimes receive severe sentences for actions directly tied to their victimization,” Megan Scanlon, CEO of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, told the committee. “SB 15‑02 increases judicial discretion by allowing judges to issue nuanced, trauma‑informed sentences while still retaining the power to deny relief if a survivor cannot prove that their victimization was a contributing factor.”

Proponents described many situations in which survivors are pushed into crime — from coerced participation to fighting back — and said current mandatory minimums can leave judges unable to factor that history fully into a sentence. Dr. Rishani Rees, a forensic psychologist and executive director of Drop LWOP New England, told the committee she has worked with incarcerated women who were victims of severe abuse before committing offenses and said the justice system needs a formal process to consider that context.

“SB 15‑02 has the power to create increased opportunities for victims and survivors in Connecticut to experience humanity and understanding from our justice system,” Tanisha Signore, policy director at She Leads Justice, said.

Committee members pressed witnesses on details: how claims of abuse would be proven, how the bill interacts with existing pre‑sentence reports and mandatory minimums, and whether the change would overwhelm the courts and victim‑notification systems. Witnesses said the bill is meant to create a predictable avenue — not an automatic release — and that courts already receive and consider many forms of evidence related to a defendant’s background, but that mandatory statutory floors can prevent judges from acting on that information.

Proponents pointed to other states that have passed similar laws, including New York and Oklahoma, and said implementation language can and should be tailored so decisions are evidence‑based and protect public safety while allowing courts to consider trauma when appropriate. Several witnesses emphasized the change would be used rarely and would require factual proof to the sentencing authority.

Supporters urged the committee to move the bill forward so judges, parole panels and commutation authorities can formally apply trauma‑informed analysis to cases where abuse meaningfully contributed to criminal behavior.

If the committee reports the bill, the next steps would be committee deliberation and potential floor consideration by the Connecticut General Assembly.

Sources: testimony from Megan Scanlon (Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence), Tanisha Signore (She Leads Justice), Dr. Rishani Rees (Drop LWOP New England), and others at the March 17, 2025 Judiciary Committee public hearing.","Survivor advocates, nonprofits and specialists urged the Judiciary Committee to pass Senate Bill 15‑02, which would let judges and parole authorities consider domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and trafficking as mitigating or contributing factors when sentencing or reviewing sentences for people already incarcerated.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Fair‑rent commission opponents tell Judiciary Committee UAPA would add costly formality

Commission urges committee to implement racial and ethnic impact statements with clearer timelines and procedures

Supporters push shorter wait, fewer gatekeepers for Connecticut sentence‑mod law

Connecticut advocates press Judiciary Committee to let trauma inform sentencing for domestic violence survivors