Judiciary Committee advances multiple bills to the floor after debates on venue, nondisclosure agreements and legal standards

The Judiciary Committee voted May 12 to move a slate of substitute bills to the floor while holding separate debates on venue language, nondisclosure agreements, a commerce-clause challenge to parts of a prescription drug bill and an undefined investigatory standard in a campaign finance measure.

The committee voted to send substitute for Senate Bill 7, “An Act Concerning Protection for Access to Health Care and Equitable Delivery of Health Care Services in the State,” to the floor with the recommended adoption of Senate Amendment Schedule A. Senator Derek Winfield made the motion, with Representative Fazino (recorded as the second). Representative Joel Fishbein said he would vote no because the bill as drafted (line 732 referenced in committee discussion) would limit petitions to Hartford Superior Court and could force parties to travel to Hartford rather than using courthouses across the state. “I do intend to vote no, hoping that that language gets fixed,” Fishbein said.

The committee also advanced substitute for Senate Bill 545 (telecommunications quality-of-service standards and prohibiting remote reconnection fees) and substitute for Senate Bill 1035 (limitations on the use of nondisclosure agreements). Representative Fazino and others voiced procedural or regulatory concerns but supported moving the measures forward. On SB 1035, Representative Fishbein said he sympathized with the goals but cautioned against government stepping into private contracts: “language here, even though the person is compensated for that agreement, it would break that. And that’s stepping into contract, and that’s not an appropriate role for government,” he said, and indicated he would vote no on the bill.

A conteste…