KEITH J. ROBBINS

April 6 2007

A new mandate lurks in this year's General Assembly that threatens the outcome of some of the boldest legislative initiatives this state has seen in decades. A historic investment in Connecticut's education funding grant and intriguing proposals to provide local property tax relief would be at least negated if certain public employee unions have their way.

How could a single bill have such a damaging affect on such landmark proposals? Simple: House Bill 6956 would be the largest unfunded state mandate on municipalities in recent history and could cost towns and cities - and their taxpayers - tens of millions of dollars for decades to come. This mandate would negate an overwhelming amount of state aid that the legislature and governor are posed to allocate to municipalities.

If enacted, the bill would force municipalities to pay for benefits to firefighters who are diagnosed with certain types of cancer or who suffer from heart disease or hypertension, without requiring them to show these ailments are work-related. The bill would also require municipalities to pay the costs of police officers or firefighters who have infectious or contagious diseases - again, regardless of whether they have contracted the disease while working.

The bill dismisses an employee's obligation to disclose such mitigating factors as lifestyle, habits or family medical history as possible contributing causes to conditions such as heart attacks or prostate cancer.

This new proposal is not necessary. Currently, if there is a correlation between the job and a particular illness, public safety officers already receive workers compensation benefits - they just have to demonstrate the job-relatedness of the illness. The workers compensation system is fair and works well. Yet this bill would disrupt the balance of the system by creating the default presumption that an employee is ill because of his or her job activities.

This legislation is bad public policy. Its implications on municipal budgets - and ultimately on local programs and services - would be enormous. The state's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis has identified the impact of this colossal mandate on local budgets as "significant," one of the biggest understatements of this legislative session. It is a huge giveaway of public tax dollars.

According to the fiscal analysis, the cost to a municipality of a single case of tuberculosis or meningitis would range between $750,000 and $2.5 million. Meanwhile, being forced to assume an employee's cancer is automatically related to his or her job could cost towns and cities over $1 million per case.

Rest assured, if the state mandates that towns pay for the costs associated with these illnesses, the number of cases will increase. When that happens, local governments' insurance premiums rates will rise, too. Towns will then have to either raise taxes or cut services.

This proposal would also undo a 1996 compromise on "heart disease and hypertension" benefits that maintained the entitlement for all employees who were on the job on or before June 30, 1996, but eliminated it for those hired later.

Towns and cities continue to pay millions of dollars each year - and will for at least the next 20 years - until every police officer and firefighter hired before July 1, 1996, retires. But this year's proposal ignores this compromise, the lack of medical substantiation, and the disastrous impacts on local taxpayers.

The dedication of our public safety officials is not at issue here. What is at issue is whether the state legislature deems it fair for one level of government to require another level of government to pay millions for a special benefit - a benefit that, when warranted, is already provided. If the state believes this proposal is sound public policy, then the state should pay for it.The existing workers compensation system is the appropriate mechanism to address these job-related illness claims. The system should not be jury-rigged to grant a new entitlement to any particular group of employees or employers at the expense of property taxpayers and local programs. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities is calling on the General Assembly to oppose House Bill 6956.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding - and it should also remain in the workers compensation system when it comes to workers and their job-related illnesses.

Keith J. Robbins, first selectman of Bozrah and vice president of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.

Copyright 2007, Hartford Courant