DCP says one complaint closed, discusses how to file complaints and tracks two state glass-licensing bills

The Consumer Protection Department’s investigation representative told the panel that, for the period Nov. 1, 2024, through Dec. 30, 2024, the department received no new complaints and closed one existing complaint.

Janita, identified at the meeting as the DCP investigation-division representative, said how consumers file complaints and what happens after they do. “We tell people to go to our website to click on complaints and they have two options,” Janita said. She explained that complainants who provide names and contact information receive a file number and subsequent correspondence identifying the inspector assigned; anonymous complainants do not receive any follow-up. “If they choose to be anonymous, they must click in the box saying they’re anonymous. But the other thing is, if you click in being anonymous, you’re never gonna get any information,” Janita said, adding that putting a contact in the body of an “anonymous” complaint negates anonymity because the respondent receives a copy of the complaint.

Board members asked for the official web address to share with consumers. Janita confirmed the department’s web page at www.ct.gov/dcp and noted users should select “Complaints” on the homepage.

The meeting also turned to state legislation that members said could affect flat-glass contractors and shops. A participant identified as Jennifer read language she had found describing Senate Bill 747 as “an act concerning flat glass occupational licensing to determine preglaze or preassembled for purposes of an exemption from the flat glass occupational license requirement,” and named Senator George Cabara as the sponsor. Jennifer and other members said the bill had not moved in the legislature but that the board should monitor it for possible hearings.

Members also discussed a separate bill, identified as Senate Bill 388, and raised the prospect of reciprocity between states for licensing. John, a long-time meeting participant who said he fields consumer calls about auto glass, noted variations between states and said he had seen Massachusetts allow stores — rather than individual technicians — to be licensed. John said national technical standards (referred to at the meeting as “ANSI AGRIF standards”) were under discussion among neighboring states, but that it was not clear from available information whether any change would shift licensing from individuals to stores.

Administrative business at the meeting included a motion to accept the prior meeting’s minutes, which was moved and seconded; the transcript records the motion and second but does not record a roll-call vote. The meeting ended after a motion to adjourn was made and seconded; the motion carried on an audible voice vote recorded as three “Aye” responses in the transcript.

The board set its next meeting for May 15 and discussed the possibility of an in-person session.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to accept minutes from previous meeting — mover: Carl (moved); seconder: John (seconded); outcome: approved (motion moved and seconded; no roll-call recorded in transcript). - Motion to adjourn — mover: Jennifer (moved); seconder: Carl (seconded); outcome: approved (voice vote: at least three ayes recorded).