Response to the OpEd of Rep. Doug Dubitsky published in The Bulletin on August 24, 2017.
To the Editor:
When I ran for state representative in 2016, I made very clear to people of both political parties that I would be an independent voice — that I would put the concerns of the people in my district over the interests of either political party. Since taking office, I have done this. I have bucked the Democratic leadership on plenty of issues. Look no further than one of my earliest votes in office. In February, I voted with the Republican caucus in opposing a deal put forward by Governor Malloy concerning state employees’ pension. Later in the session, I voted to reject the deficit mitigation plan because I felt it infringed on our constitutional rights. To be honest, I am not comfortable with partisan politics. I feel at home as a centrist, which means many outsiders have viewed me as a swing vote in the legislature.
Recently, Representative Doug Dubitsky authored an op-ed in which he accused me and other moderates of playing party politics by denying a budget debate. First, I would like to say that I have the utmost respect for him, and I have valued working with him on drafting legislation relating to agriculture and other issues that are important to our region. However, I disagree with his assertion. The reality is, Representative Dubitsky’s recent piece leans to the side of sensationalism rather than a fair take on the debate about the house rules.
Rep. Dubitsky is referring to two procedural votes. The first time, I voted to uphold the ruling of the House parliamentarian who determined the amendment to the SEBAC agreement was out of order. Before the parliamentarian made his ruling, I knew I would vote to uphold the ruling of the chair — regardless of how he decided. The second vote in question was an unprecedented (a term used by the gentleman offering the amendment) effort to change the House rules so that legislation could be brought to the floor in an unconventional manner. For decades the rules of the House have rarely changed and are agreed to unanimously, but suddenly in 2017 they have become partisan.
There is no question that we need a compromise budget — one that will pass both houses of the legislature and receive the governor’s signature. It is in the best interest of the people in my district to reach a budget agreement, not to have the House act in a silo. Before floor action, leaders of the various caucuses and the Governor’s office must compromise and reach an agreement on a budget framework. To my knowledge, that has not happened yet. Working together would get us a veto proof margin and make the Governor irrelevant in the process.
I am well aware of the dangers of Governor Malloy’s budget proposal. I have met with the Speaker of the House to push him to continue working with Republican leadership. I have also implored him to not forget the Quiet Corner has different needs than the urban areas. The speaker knows he cannot count on my vote if the budget he comes up with guts schools in the 50th district, like the governor’s proposal, or if the budget significantly increases taxes on the working people in my district.
Being an independent voice means there will be times the Republicans don’t like how I vote and there will be times the Democrats don’t like how I vote. I don’t care about that. I go to work at the capitol every day with one goal in mind: To advocate for the people I represent.
When you boil it down, Rep. Dubitsky and I are essentially saying the same thing. We need a budget, now. We can not let the draconian cuts suggested by Governor Malloy go into effect under executive order. We disagree about parliamentary procedure, but not the end game. Let’s get this done.
Pat Boyd
Pomfret
Please feel free to reach out and contact me at @RepPatBoyd or email at pat.boyd@cga.ct.gov
