Short of halfway through his second four-year term, Middletown wunderkind Democrat Ben Florsheim resigned as mayor on Tuesday.

The 2014 Wesleyan graduate won a thumping re-election in 2023. He has had numerous extended tussles with the Common Council, which is dominated by Democrats.

Florsheim, Daily Ructions has learned, will leave office next month to pursue teaching. A special election will follow.

Updates as events require.

Florsheim will issue a statement later today.

Published May 20, 2025.

The Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation (CNG) and The Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) alleged in a Friday court filing that the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURA) failed to provide documents included in an April 16th order. As a result, Plaintiffs CNG and SCG are seeking an order requiring PURA to “search for, collect, and produce, under supervision of counsel” text messages, emails and attachments “in a format that includes all relevant metadata and document history.”

The 24-page motion addresses the continuing mystery of who wrote a December 19th opinion piece that appeared in the CT Mirror under the names of State Senator Norm Needleman and State Representative Jonathan Steinberg, co-chairs of the legislature’s energy committee. The publication of the op-ed, which excoriated utilities, credit ratings agencies, and the press, has come to play a central role in an appeal of CNG and SCG rate decisions by PURA. The gas companies allege that if PURA chair Marissa Gillett had a hand in the op-ed, she cannot act as a fair-minded finder of facts in the utility cases.

PURA’s response to an April 16th Superior Court decision requiring PURA to produce all documents in its possession related to the incendiary op-ed was, according to the Plaintiffs, inadequate and lacking documents referred to in emails and text messages to or from Gillett. A curious omission by PURA are the December 15th text messages between Gillett and Steinberg that refer to the PURA chief having finished an op-ed draft and waiting for her chief of staff Theresa Govert and others in the agency to review it. Rather than provide those text messages from Gillett’s phone, the agency gave the Plaintiffs a screenshot of the text messages published in a Hartford Courant story. The messages were obtained by Courant reporter Ed Mahony from the House Democrats.

Where, the Plaintiffs wonder, are the texts from Gillett’s side of the exchanges? Could Gillett, who at the same time she told Steinberg she had finished the elusive draft, have deleted her text messages? Gillett did make a reference in what we know of that exchange with Steinberg made to using a private email account to avoid being “FOI’d.” But that is not how the act works. It’s the document that is subject to the open-records law, no matter the means of creating of transmitting it.

Claiming to be acting in the interest of transparency, PURA disclosed to the Plaintiffs seven emails purporting to show that the agency was in various stages of pondering a variety of documents for publication when Gillett said she had completed the op-ed in December. The dates, according to the Plaintiffs’ motion, “simply do not line up.” The emails make reference to Word document attachments but do not include any. One of those messages refers to a December lunch meeting with Needleman “to Discuss Energy Policy.” The meeting was to take place at the Essex Yacht Club.

PURA did not produce what, if Gillett is telling the truth that she had no role in the polemic published in the CT Mirror, would put this matter to rest: the draft she completed and referred to in her text message to Steinberg.

An explosive footnote near the conclusion of the Plaintiffs’ motion raises the stakes for trust in government. Without documents from Gillett–documents that once were in her possession–“it may be necessary for the Court to consider ordering additional third-party discovery or depositions of Rep. Steinberg, Sen. Needleman and Theresa Govert.” The Plaintiffs point out that “in public comment to date, Rep. Steinberg has said in a very carefully worded statement, only that ‘Senator Needleman and I take full responsibility for the editorial” –which is rather different than an acknowledgement of authorship.”

Or the two legislators could voluntarily be more forthcoming in the documents they sent and received.

The litigation continues.

Published May 19, 2025.

Friday’s downgrade of the credit rating of the United States government must have cost someone a lot of dosh. That would be the inescapable conclusion of anyone paying attention to recent events in Connecticut.

On December 19th, an opinion piece bearing the names of Senator Norm Needleman (D-Essex) and Representative Jonathan Steinberg appeared in the online CT Mirror, accusing credit ratings agency S&P of lowering in connivance with the utility Eversource. The co-chairs of the legislature’s energy committee and credit ratings experts declared, “To suggest that these ratings agencies are independent or objective is nonsensical.”

Now we know. Powerful forces with a lot of money to spread around the ratings agencies are at work. Only fools—in this case the certain members of press for whom Needleman and Steinberg have only disdain—would believe those credit ratings are legitimate estimations of a company’s or government’s financial prospects.

Maybe Needleman and Steinberg are not rating agency experts. The authorship of that December polemic has been in doubt since the Courant’s Ed Mahony revealed a December 16th exchange of text messages suggesting Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) chair Marissa Gillett had a hand in writing the screed. Gillett and her two disciples who serve as chairs of the committee that in theory oversees PURA deny she played any role in creating the controversial op-ed.

Evidence undermining their claims continues to tumble into the public square. PURA recently (and belatedly) disclosed in litigation that Gillett urged agency staff members to “enjoy” the op-ed in an email containing end-of-year best wishes, adding a message in tune with the piece Needleman and Steinberg continue to insist they wrote, “Don’t believe the utility company propaganda.”

As the utility companies press their claims against PURA bias in court, the light does appear to be growing closer to the details of the provenance of that lethal op-ed.

All people of goodwill hope Needleman, Steinberg, and Gillett have been telling the truth. If they have not, the damage to the public trust they exercise will be incalculable—and ruinous to them, as well.

In the meantime, an anxious world hopes the three are spending the weekend on a CT Mirror piece explaining who gains from manipulating Moody’s into Friday’s downgrade. This weekend may Gillett once more tell Steinberg that “I have finished my draft,” her staff is reviewing it, and she will send it to her two centurions “later today.”

And then we will know the truth of a major global event from Connecticut’s three unlikely credit agency experts who were made for this moment.

Published May 17, 2025.

We shall not be moved by the poisonous manipulations of the powerful few. Connecticut Rule of Law Committee members Deidre Daly, Jonathan Freiman, James Glasser, Stephen Goldman, Craig Raabe, James T. Shearin, and Brian Spears created a firm and simple statement upholding what Margaret Thatcher called the first duty of government, the rule of law. More than 500 Connecticut lawyers of many viewpoints, listed here, signed on in support.

It declares:

We are Connecticut lawyers with different political allegiances and views, different backgrounds, and different professional paths: some in law firms, some in non-profit organizations, some in the government. Like those who built this country, we believe in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And like this country’s founders, we hope to guard against what the Declaration of Independence called “an absolute tyranny over these states.” That tyranny, our Declaration of Independence recognized, arrives when leaders refuse their “assent to laws.” Loyalty to the law is “necessary for the public good,” necessary to democracy. Our deep commitment to this nation’s constitution and laws, and to democracy, brings us together to state publicly what has so often been taken for granted but what must now be said again aloud:

• No one should threaten judges with impeachment or violence because of their decisions.
• The government, like any other party to a case, must follow court orders.
• Lawyers have the right to choose whom they will represent without fear of retaliation from the government.
• People arrested or detained by the government have the right to due process and to consult with counsel.
• People in this country have the freedom of speech and of association, and the government cannot punish anyone for exercising those freedoms.

Over our country’s long history, many have sacrificed to preserve these basic rights: service members, poll workers, judges, elected and appointed officials, educators, and ordinary citizens. We honor them. And we recognize that we, as lawyers, have a special duty to safeguard the law. To that end, we stand today shoulder to-shoulder, lawyers in the Constitution state, to proclaim again these Constitutional guarantees.

To cower in the face of an aspiring autocrat in the thrall of murderous dictators and his grisly battalions of the servile with dark aspirations, is to concede the fight in the early going. In this perilous hour, we shall not be moved from upholding these essentials of a free society.

We fight on, each in their own way.

Published May 15, 2025.

David Cassetti, Ansonia’s Republican mayor, is built for this coarse age, but he may found its limits this week.

Cassetti is as thin-skinned as he foul-mouthed. In a social media post, the unsuccessful 2024 candidate for the state House of Representatives, took offense at someone complaining about a garbage can. Ansonia residents need to attach garbage cans to their ears when Cassetti thunders forth. He wrote in response to a complaint:

The comment was deleted–but not before Ansonia Democrats caught a screenshot and demanded Cassetti’s resignation in their own incensed but properly stated social media post. Cassetti is serving his sixth two-year term as mayor. Cassetti has been re-elected five consecutive times by wide margins, but was defeated by the controversial state Representative Kara Rochelle in November by 700 votes.

Published May 7, 2025.

Terryville Republican Jonathan De Barros wants a clear path to his party’s nomination for the House of Representatives from Connecticut’s Fifth Congressional District. And he’s not asking nicely.

In a social media post, De Barros wrote to anyone contemplating running against him, “I promise your that I will not play nice and I will actually do you worse than I’m gonna do her [presumably referring to Democratic incumbent Jahana Hayes] because I know no can beat her but me.” If the incendiary Klan imagery included in that post did not sufficiently appall readers, De Barros added in a second post 10 minutes later that claimed, “If you step in my District with your bullshit I’m going to destroy you in a Republican Primary Election and intentionally embarrass you for even trying.”

Fifth District Republicans will need to put some effort into finding a candidate who will not attract the kind of attention that requires frequent comment and condemnation by other candidates on the Republican line.

De Barros, who filed a declaration of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission on March 17th, raised $1,331 during his first six weeks as a candidate.

Published May 7, 2025.

Superior Court Judge Matthew J. Budzik ruled Wednesday that the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) must produce all documents “within its possession and control…that concern the drafting or authorship of the December 19, 2024 op-ed.” That’s the controversial pungent opinion piece that appeared in the CT Mirror and purported to be written by Senator Norm Needleman and Representative Jonathan Steinberg.

The op-ed alleged that Eversource, the state’s largest utility, had connived to have financial ratings agencies downgrade its rating as proof PURA was damaging Eversource’s ability to do business in Connecticut. The op-ed also criticized the media coverage of the complex issues of energy generation, distribution, and regulation in Connecticut. The criticism appeared to be aimed at the state’s leading reporter on energy issues, The Courant’s Ed Mahony.

Questions about the authorship of the op-ed began to be posed upon its publication. It sounded like it was a page out of PURA chair Marissa Gillett’s manual on how to criticize utilities.

PURA has 15 days to comply with Judge Budzik’s order. If the plaintiff utilities are not satisfied with what PURA turns over, it has 30 days from today to seek additional discovery in the contentious case over how PURA has been conducting its business.

As to the op-ed itself, Judge Budzik concludes, “the court has reviewed the December 19, 2024 op-ed appearing in the Connecticut Mirror that is the basis of CNG ‘s and SCG’s allegations. The Court concludes that a disinterested observer could conclude that the author of the op-ed in question could have in some measure adjudged the facts of CNG’s and SCG’s applications before hearing the case, which is to say, prejudged whether the requested rate increases [before PURA] were appropriate.”

It is an extraordinary development in the ongoing drama of the high cost of power in Connecticut.

Gillett, it should be noted, has stated under oath she had nothing to do with the incendiary opinion piece. Needleman and Steinberg have insisted they are its authors.

Updates as they occur–and they will.

Published April 16, 2025.

David Hogg, a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, brings his campaign to clear out senior, older legislators from Congress to New Haven on April 25th. This may make some Connecticut Democrats uneasy, but two added their names to the event host committee.

Hogg, according to a Tuesday New York Times story, “said his party must squelch a pervasive ‘culture of seniority politics’ that has allowed older and less effective lawmakers to continue to hold office at a moment of crisis.” Hogg is president of Leaders We Deserve, an organization that hopes to spend $20 million ousting older Democrats. Hogg will not support challenges to every alter kocker among House Democrats. He has generously given his blessing to 85 year old former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and 80 year old Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.

New Haven’s own Rosa DeLauro is on the event host committee. In her 34th year in the House, DeLauro turned 82 years old in March. John Larson will celebrate his 77th birthday this summer. Richard Blumenthal, serving his third term in the Senate, will mark his 80th birthday in February, the oldest person to serve Connecticut in the Senate.

Perhaps Hogg, who believes all drugs should be legal and no one should have more than $1 billion, will use the April 25th event to give DeLauro and Larson his blessing to continue to seek to serve the people who elect them to office. Or maybe he will collect names of potential Leaders We Deserve donors and weaponize them in Connecticut.

Leaders Will Deserve, The Times reports, looks for candidates for Congress who are 35 years old or young and 30 or younger for state legislative offices.

Published April 16, 2025.

State Senator John Fonfara (D-Hartford) has endured some serious buffeting by detractors determined to do him down since late last year. Forty years in Hartford politics requires adaptability and resilience. Fonfara showed it Tuesday afternoon.

The 25-member Senate Democratic caucus met to hear Fonfara present his energy plan and wow what can be a tough audience, especially to each other. Personal warmth is not a primary characteristic among members is not a characteristic of the caucus. Members protect their subject matter silos. Some members have been elected in the years since Fonfara left the spot he’d occupied for more than a decade as co-chair of the energy committee to become Senate co-chair of the legislature’s finance committee. They were not aware that Fonfara has long been the most conversant senator on energy issues.

Fonfara’s bill was a revelation for Democratic senators anxious to see something make progress during this long session that will redeem their campaign promises to provide electricity ratepayers relief.

Fonfara appears to have produced the goods. The Courant has the details in Ed Mahony’s story.

The Fonfara proposal takes some momentum into Thursday’s public hearing on it. His Wednesday unveiling will have left little time for the energy overmasters at regulator PURA to issue marching orders to mount a search and destroy mission on anything related to Fonfara.

The strange power ghostwriters at PURA exercise at the LOB may be thwarted by a plan that does something to placate unhappy ratepayers.

Published April 16, 2025.

When will they learn? If you are not Mel Brooks, nix the Nazi allusions. Even in this coarse, ugly age, most politicians must still be careful about comparing adversaries to Herr Schicklgruber and his jackbooted Nazis. Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas compared President Donald Trump to the brutal Germans who slaughtered millions and subdued Europe from 1933 until he killed himself 80 years ago this month, defeated at last.

Thomas was addressing the semiannual meeting of the association of the state’s registrars of voters, ROVAC. On Monday, Thomas sent a long email to the registrars assuring them that her Nazi reference was not intended to offend nor was it aimed at anyone in the audience. Thomas in her hundreds of words does not include what she said, so it must have been bad. But she is sorry. House Republicans posted a brief clip including her offending comments on their YouTube channel.

The message is a bit of a ramble through the Norwalk Democrat’s philosophy of life, a host of election-related issues, and a diversion into a trip to Germany that made an impression on her. It is not an easy missive to summarize. One wag pointed out, if Thomas had read it aloud it would sounded like a hostage tape.

Decide for yourself:

Dear Registrars,

I have heard from many of you since the ROVAC conference!  Although most of the notes I’ve received have been positive – from both sides of the aisle – I have heard from three people who found my remarks “disappointing,” “unprofessional,” and “partisan.”  If three people reached out, that means others are thinking it. I do not like to let things fester and would rather address them head-on.  So here goes:

I understand if my comments made you feel something that was not my intent.  Because it wasn’t my intent, you have my apologies if you felt personally attacked.  That could not be further from my goal.  I do not look at this group as Republican and Democrat, I look at the group as election administrators.  I can see how some Republicans thought my comments aimed at them, but they were not. They were aimed at policies.

So what was my goal?  Two very simple things: 

1. If I think something is wrong, I speak up.  That is a life choice, not a political one.  You’ve seen this many times and never called it political before – when I said I would rather have no early voting than have it unfunded, when I fought for a shorter early voting period,  when I got the bonding released for new tabulators after being told we needed to wait, when I asked you all to sign on to a document about your integrity last cycle when there were many doubting it.  I think the SAVE Act and the EO are bad policy so I am educating people about both in case they haven’t read the bill or order in detail.

2. Since the SAVE Act is still in the legislative process and the EO is facing so many legal challenges and far from settled, I wanted to talk abouthow it would impact Connecticut so you could do what you want about it.  Write the White House and say you love or hate it.  Write Congress and say it should pass or shouldn’t or provide ideas to make it better policy.  I don’t tell people what to think (I tell them what I think and ask them to make their own conclusions) or what to do, but I really, really hope that they WILL think and they WILL engage in civic engagement regardless of what side of the aisle. 

Those were my only goals.  Below, I would like to address some of the common themes of concern from the three writers because they are likely shared by others:

• My statements were characterized as “…a calculated, political act.”  The most political thing for me to do would be to keep my mouth shut.  Why on earth would I purposely try to alienate half the room? Especially a closed room with only registrars?  That does me the very opposite of political good.  

• It was stated that ROVAC is an “Inappropriate place for a campaign style speech.”  I’m not actually sure what that means.  Passionate?  I’m always passionate about #1 above, but perhaps this group just hasn’t been on the receiving end before.  If you thought that was passionate, you should have been on the other side of the table during the conversation about town referenda being subject to early voting!  Or with those who said we had to have 14 days of early voting.

• It was questioned, “How do we work side by side with people who sat idly by while we were likened to the SS?”  Let me be very, very clear here. I was NOT likening any person to members of the SS and agree that I should have not said that.  It was hyperbolic.  I was not working from notes and the first thing that popped into my mind was something I’ve carried with me since taking a road trip through Germany several years ago.  I visited many WWII and Stasi museums, concentration camps, Berlin Wall, etc.  I was always struck by something I read there – about the large percentage of the population that were informal informants who passed along tips to the Gestapo with no evidence.  The language in the EO which requires the passing along of “suspects” to the DOJ sounded similar to me.  

• It was suggested that I have ruined years of registrars being able to work together on a bi-partisan basis.  I don’t think I have that much power and hope that isn’t true.  As I mentioned above, my remarks were about election administrators vs. sloppy policy writers and not Republicans vs. Democrats. 

• Someone who wasn’t present told me they heard that I was, “naming names.”  I’m not sure what that means, but I named no names.

• It was suggested, “The only appropriate comments on the laws should have been you giving us the resources to follow them as they are written. Your opinions on the laws were not relevant. Just like with EV, it didn’t matter how we felt about the process, once it becomes law/statute/policy etc. our job is to preform our duties in compliance with that law/statute/policy.”  This couldn’t be further from what I see as my role or yours.  If that were true, I wouldn’t still be trying to get money for the towns for early voting or reducing the days or switching to tabulators instead of envelopes.  And I hope you are doing the same.  What I’ve said again and again is that it would do nothing to tell ME of your complaints once the law passed.  I all but begged every one of you to testify before the law passed and to work with your own delegations since it passed to try to get the law changed.   Laws are not fixed for all time, but constantly being amended or tweaked.

My question at the conference was an honest one: if we have to enact this executive order by the end of the month, and the other provisions set for 90 and 120 days, I’m not sure how the towns would do it.  So far, our office has been cut $750,000 at the state level and last week the feds reduced HAVA funding so we’ve been cut another $738,000.  I will continue to push back on additional election reforms at this time due to the bandwidth issues of our office and your workload, whether it is Ranked Choice Voting or the SAVE Act.

Apologies for such a long email and I am sorry if some of you saw my comments as a personal attack.  I aim to be non-partisan in my work, but obviously failed in that last week.  I am human and will continue onward, doing my best.

Best,

Stephanie Thomas

Connecticut Secretary of the State

Published April 15, 2025.