Daily Trendline - International Stage.

President Obama and family - in Moscow seeking a new agreement on nuclear arms reduction with Russia (New York Times). While there the topics of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran will also be discussed. Early pictures of the trip show the American President and First Lady pressing a full court charm offensive.

As Connecticut moves into its second month without a state budget plans are for Democrats, Republicans and Governor Rell to resume negotiations today. One report says the governor is prepared to issue executive orders keeping state government running one month at a time through the summer if that is what's necessary.

In 1991 and 2003 (the last two major budget crisis years), there were minor protests from legislative leaders over the governor's use of executive authority to run the state without legislative action. Not so this time. A sign Democrats are more than willing to let the governor take the heat if there is any operational fallout from the lack of a budget.

Two stories from the weekend highlight the dual life and twin perspectives of Senator Dodd. Politico notes how Washington Democrats are coming to the aid of Dodd as he loses the confidence of voters back home. Meanwhile, back home, long time Connecticut political observer Dick Ahles writes in The Day on Dodd's dilemma from the perspective of the people who will actually get a vote next year.

Elsewhere in Washington, Roll Call reports the anti-lobbyist Obama administration is finding new ways to work around an Obama campaign promise to limit the role of paid advocates in his administration. This story, combined with last week's maneuvering in Connecticut over lobbying by Catholics shows there's a need for a more mature approach to the debate over the role of lobbyists. "Lobbyists = bad" is not enough.

Column alert - Several weeks ago I drafted a column for the HBJ about Sarah Palin. It hasn't been published yet. Just wanted you to know the thoughts expressed in the column were made pre-resignation because I notice some of the commentary of the last few days sounds like what I wrote. It'll probably run next week.

At Noon - This week's HBJ column on Governor Rell's death penalty veto.

HBJ - The Tom Dodd Factor.

I write this column reluctantly. More than once, I have seen the personal and family toll taken by political scandal. When I worked as a journalist full time, I used to recoil when colleagues went after politicians without mercy, hiding behind the phrase; “They knew what they were getting into when they decided to step into the public life.”

I didn’t think that was the case then and I am sure of it now. No one understands the extent of the pain that can be inflicted when the news media decides a public figure needs to be brought down unless they have been through it. It can be debilitating and long lasting.

Understanding that, I’m the last person who wants to bring up a discussion of former Connecticut U.S. Senator Thomas Dodd when speaking about the current political plight of his son. But as Chris Dodd begins a campaign for re-election to the Senate in 2010 his father is becoming an issue.

Like most people in public life, Tom Dodd’s record is mixed. He is known best for two things. After World War Two he was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and in 1967, he became the first U.S. Senator to be censured by his colleagues. Understandably, the Dodd family has done its best to highlight the good and forget the bad. The hard work of repairing the elder Dodd’s image may be one of the casualties of Chris Dodd’s current campaign.

The Senator Dodd of today has just endured the worst year of his political life. He has been scrutinized as never before. His financial dealings, his judgment, even his wife’s business connections have been called into question. And for many long time political observers, the comparisons to the end of his father’s career and ultimately his life, seems all too similar to ignore.

The issue was brought into focus best by a June article in Newsweek titled, “Like Father, Like Son.” It was a very sympathetic look at Tom Dodd’s case. On June 23, 1967, by a vote of 92 to 5, the Senate ruled Dodd’s behavior was “contrary to accepted morals…and tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.” In contrast, the Newsweek article summed it up this way: “The facts were never fully proved and remain murky – the elder Dodd apparently used fundraising dinners as a kind of home piggybank.”

Chris Dodd is quoted in the article as saying his father was “screwed” and more than 40 years later there are many who agree with him. Somehow, the ethical expectations of the day had changed and no remembered to tell Tom.

Other recent news accounts have made reference to the problems of the father and the son, but the Newsweek report takes it a step further. It makes the ethics link and it makes clear that Chris Dodd believes his father got a raw deal allowing his opponents to re-litigate the case in the court of public opinion.

From time to time over the years, Dodd’s political opponents have tried to raise the memory of his father as an issue against him. It has never worked. This time may be different. At the very least, Dodd’s challengers can put him on the defensive by forcing him to debate his father’s case in public. A losing issue for Dodd. At worst, the material makes for a potentially devastating political ad campaign for a challenger with nothing to lose. The effect of it all will run counter to all the work the Dodd family has done to rehabilitate Tom Dodd’s image.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

HBJ - Task Force: Budget.

One thing is certain about the state budget crisis of 2009 – it will extend into 2010.

Hard to believe, but true. Usually incumbents do anything they can to avoid making tough decisions in an election year, but because the decisions necessary to balance the budget in 2009 are so difficult, many of them will rollover into next year like late term papers at the end of the semester.

Ironically, part of the problem stems from a decision in 2008, by leaders of both parties, to forgo making budget adjustments, even though they saw the signs of a growing fiscal crisis. Delay only made things worse.

The failure to use this budget crisis as an opportunity to make fundamental change means lawmakers and the governor are resorting to quick fixes to keep things on track. To fill the massive budget hole, both sides are using one time revenue sources like the Rainy Day Fund, federal stimulus money and swiping cash from special funds set up to pay for existing programs. Anything to avoid spending cuts that lead to sacrifice or tax increases.

The problem with this one shot approach is that it ends up creating a bigger structural gap in the overall budget. It’s the government equivalent of relying on an annual performance bonus to maintain a lifestyle your base salary doesn’t support.

That’s what’s happening now. Eager to make the problem go away – if only for a while – Connecticut’s leaders are creating a politician’s worst nightmare ahead of a statewide election year. Think how bad 1991 would have been, if lawmakers were campaigning for re-election at the same time they were imposing a state income tax.

Governor Jodi Rell may see it all coming. Even as she stood by her no tax increase until I see big spending cuts strategy, she told Republicans at this year’s Prescott Bush dinner that she didn’t expect to maintain her high approval ratings too much longer. She was there for the income tax debate and watched Governor Lowell Weicker’s approval ratings plunge to near freezing in mid-summer.

Still, the continuing crisis provides an opportunity to make positive change. It’s almost certain that at some point in the coming weeks there will be a call for a bi-partisan commission to consider government restructuring. The forming of a task force is usually a reliable way to avoid making a hard decision, but it can also be used to instill courage in legislators looking for a reason to make a hard choice.

The most important thing to do when forming a task force is to understand the outcome you are looking for. It’s one thing for a governor to propose merging all the state’s economic development functions – as Governor Rell did this year – but it’s another if a respected task force recommends the merger and how to do it.

Democrats have been fighting for years to make Connecticut’s tax structure more progressive. They’ve never shown, with reliable evidence provided by a non-partisan source, why Connecticut’s current system isn’t progressive enough.

Even in tough times there is always the opportunity to make progress somewhere. Since 2006, there is a growing consensus in state government and in the business community that the state needs to invest heavily in transportation. A goal of any restructuring should be an effort to direct resources away from inefficient programs and toward the agreed upon goal of transportation improvement.

Just three examples of issues where there is wide agreement, but where no one is pointing the way. The creation of a commission is usually met with skepticism, but in this environment it could lead to change.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Interview - Carter Kneeland.

Ethics continues to dominate the Connecticut legislature as one of the major issues of the last ten years. The current cases of Senators Tom Gaffey and Joe Crisco are representative of the dilemmas presented by campaign finance laws and the relationships that inevitably complicate everyday politics.

Recognizing a growing need to help private sector clients navigate the ever changing ethics environment, Carter Kneeland, a veteran of the state Capitol and the field of government relations, has formed a new consulting firm focused on ethics.

Ethical Influence, is billed as "government relations beyond lobbying." She is offering a range of services from consulting to training and code compliance. In this interview, I asked Carter about her new firm and the state of the ethics debate in Connecticut.

DP: How did you come to the conclusion that there’s a market for the services you are offering?

Kneeland: The Connecticut General Assembly has been enacting, and subsequently tweaking, the state’s ethics laws for decades. From the nation’s capitol to Connecticut’s municipalities, ethics issues and compliance are now standard front page news.

While working for over 15 years for the Hartford lobbying firm of Robinson & Cole, I provided ethics reporting and consulting services to clients and saw the need for a specialized practice that focused on state and municipal contractors and lobbyists. The Office of State Ethics is constantly issuing advisory opinions, staff opinions and auditing the regulated community, all of which makes compliance a tricky and fluid matter. It helps to have someone dedicated to watching the regulations, who has an open relationship with the agency staff and who has years of experience navigating the financial reporting requirements.

DP: Do you consider your services to be lobbying with a special eye on ethics, or something to be added on top of traditional lobbying? Or something else?

Kneeland: In the wake of campaign finance reform and ethics reform, the traditional model of “pay to play” has been marginalized. Lobbyists continue to have a crucial role at the capitol but the services my company provides are outside that realm – government relations beyond lobbying. We don’t lobby, but we often work with our clients’ lobbyists to enhance their message and get it out to their target audience. Ethics compliance, if done well, will keep clients out of the limelight in a good way…and our public relations and grassroots efforts will highlight the message they want to send.

DP: What’s your opinion on the debate over whether the Legislature should have its own ethics committee(s)?

Kneeland: It is evident from the recent legislative session that the General Assembly does not have the collective will to police itself. It’s failure to pass an independent ethics panel bill this year, especially in the wake of several campaign finance violations, is evidence that politics will always be the 600 pound gorilla in the room. The state’s independent watch dog agencies, the Office of State Ethics and the State Elections Enforcement Commission, must fill that role. They have their own political battles, not the least of which is their reliance on state funding and the budgetary process which this year has put particular strains on their ability to function at full capacity.

DP: Do you see any evidence that the relatively new citizens’ ethics commission is going too far in an attempt to be “tough, but fair?”

Kneeland: Tough but fair is a good model, so long as the playing field is level. To this point it has been my experience that the office has been focused on the lobbying community. It is only recently that they have begun to take a closer look at the public official side of the regulated community. By auditing the statements of financial interest of public officials, the OSE is starting to take a look at the compliance of that sector. Enforcement of these reporting requirements should be met with the same vigilance they have shown lobbyists.

DP: Ethics has been a huge issue in Connecticut for the past several years. Even so, the Legislature usually gets bored after it thinks the issue has been addressed. Do you see the pendulum swinging the other way at all?

Kneeland: I think the ethics issue will be with us for some time. It was the first act of the current President. Our Governor talks about it in every State of the State address. Campaign finance violations trouble our legislature as it copes with reform. In Connecticut, the ethics battle has moved to the municipalities, where scandals and criminal investigations are bringing the issue to the forefront. Each town in Connecticut must decide how to handle these issues, unless the state resolves to enact a model code. As companies struggle to survive the current economic environment, fight for stimulus funds and cope with compliance regulations, it is clear that we will all be talking about ethics for a long time to come.

Carter’s blog: Ethical Influence Blog

HBJ - Absent Press Corps.

It would be unwise to dismiss the capability of a Democratic Party icon to make a comeback a year and a half away from the next election, but it is fair to say Senator Chris Dodd has managed to dig himself as deep a hole as is possible at this time.

The bad news associated with Senator Dodd has been cascading. A series of issues, from his decision to move to Iowa during his failed presidential campaign to a first quarter fundraising report showing he had only five Connecticut residents on his donor list, lead even a casual observer to question his allegiance to the oath he took to serve as Connecticut’s senator.

This column is not about Dodd’s mistakes. There has been plenty of criticism of him in the last several months and there will be more during the coming campaign. At this point, if he chooses not to run for re-election his political legacy will be that of a man forced to exit before being pushed out. For that reason alone he will probably try again. Better to make one last fight. If he wins he will be vindicated. If he loses, he can claim he lost standing for his principles. The truth will be sufficiently murky.

Dodd’s current predicament tells us a lot about how government works when there’s no one watching. Someone recently remarked to me that Dodd is “off his game.” The truth is Dodd has never had to have a game to get re-elected. It has always been a matter of just showing up. And that’s the case for many politicians serving at the federal level, because there is no one closely monitoring what they do and reporting it back to the voters at home.

The number of full time reporters assigned to cover the state’s congressional delegation is now down to two or three, depending on how you count it, but even when the state’s congressional press corps was double that size most of the coverage tended to be feature based and laudatory. Stories are rarely critical and most often take a Mr. Smith goes to Washington perspective. Isn’t it great that congressman so and so played golf with the president. An occasional series on “The Making of a Senator.” Did you see Senator Lieberman kiss the president?

The congressional delegation has an information advantage over the small press corps. There is no time to investigate the claims made in news releases coming from congressional offices in Washington so, for the most part, what they put out gets printed as the truth. There’s rarely any critical coverage of the delegation’s personal life and how it impacts job performance. Someone like Senator Dodd, with his rich social life, is portrayed as someone with connections rather than as someone with a lack of focus.

As the decline of journalism as we know it continues, the question is asked: What difference does it make? Here is the difference. It’s human nature to try to get away with things you think you can get away with. When we send someone far from home to represent us, we have to take their word for it when it comes to their job performance, unless we also send someone to watch on our behalf.

Our inability to rely on the news media as a means of policing our representatives in Washington has led to disappointment and mediocrity. Senator Dodd’s troubles seem like an avalanche now only because they are being revealed all at once – after a pile up - rather than in real time by a vigilant press.

As published in the Hartford Business Journal.

Editor's Note: Since this column was written, the last man standing as a Washington based correspondent for a Connecticut newspaper - Peter Urban of the Connecticut Post - was laid off. Connecticut dailies are now trying to cover the congressional delegation from here at home.