|
December 15, 2000
REP. TULISANO ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR THE VETERAN'S HOSPITAL
State Representative Richard Tulisano (D-Hartford, Rocky Hill, Wethersfield) announced today that $200,000 in state
funding to assist in alterations, repairs and improvements to the Veteran's Hospital building and grounds was approved by the State Bond Commission on Friday, December 15th.
"It is my hope and desire that the state maintains a commitment to veterans in making the hospital a place for all who
needs the facilities," Tulisano continues. "Hopefully, this bond issue is a continuing example of the state's concern in the future of veterans."
Rep. Tulisano has throughout his career sought to maintain a major commitment to Connecticut's Veterans. It is his hope
that the commitment made today by the state to veterans, specifically with regard to the Veteran's Home, will be maintained in the future. |
|
September 21, 2000
TULISANO RECEIVES CHAMPION OF LIBERTY AWARD FROM CRIMINAL
DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
State Representative Richard D. Tulisano (D-Rocky Hill) received the Champion of Liberty award from the Connecticut
Criminal Defense Lawyers Association at its annual dinner meeting Wednesday.
The association praised Tulisano for his passionate defense of liberty in the Legislature. In just this past session, Tulisano
was instrumental in a new law that allows cases to be re-opened based on new DNA testing which wasn't used or readily available while the fate of accused criminals was being decided.
Tulisano said that as an attorney/legislator, he is constantly fighting to point out to legislators how proposed laws will
actually affect the system - a system intended to treat everyone fairly. In recent years, the Legislature has reacted to particular incidents, a crime of the day, if you will, and creates legislation to address a given situation without a thought of how targeted laws can be a detriment to all others.
Maintaining a vigilant defense of liberty is essential to keeping our country one large step above all others. While the
American ideal is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, seldom are citizens vigilant of the rights of an accused until they, a friend or a member of their family, have been denied their rights.
Our country, more importantly than a place, is an idea that needs to be protected. Our strength, in good times and bad, is
in our liberty - our freedom. Our system of justice is designed to protect everyone, including the accused. Legislators need to be reminded of this precious distinction as they craft new laws to address specific cases.
"Remember Lenin said 'liberty is so precious, perhaps it should be rationed.' It is our charge," Tulisano said, "and
obligation to make sure this never happens in our state and in our country."
Rep. Tulisano's comments to the CT Criminal Defense Lawyers in September
2000:
As an attorney legislator, I am constantly fighting to point to other legislators how proposed laws
will actually affect the system - a system intended to treat everyone fairly.
In recent years, the legislature has reacted to particular incidents. A crime of the day, if you will,
and has passed new legislation to address a given situation. Without a thought of how targeted laws can be detriment to all others, and even ineffective in accomplishing the goals intended. Traditional concepts of due process, and civil liberties, often go unheeded. Thus, maintaining a vigilant defense of liberty is essential to keeping our country one large step above all others, and maintaining some semblance of fairness in our state.
While the American ideal is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. More often than not,
citizens, lawyers, and laymen forget the ideals. Seldom are citizens vigilant of the rights of an accused - until they, a friend or a member of their family, have been denied their rights.
Our Country is more than a place. It is an idea, which needs to be protected. Our strength, in
good times and in bad is in our liberty, our freedom. Our system of justice is designed to protect everyone, including the accused, and legislators need to be reminded of this precious distinction as they craft new laws to address specific cases. |
|
July 28, 2000
TULISANO CALLS FOR REPEAL & REPAIR OF GUN SEIZURE LAW
State Representative Richard D. Tulisano (D-29th district), Majority Whip, who has been cited as a "zealous guardian
of constitutional protections" today called for the repeal and repair of the controversial state law that set up procedures to search and seize weapons from individuals not charged with crime.
"Recent events point out, once again, that well-intentioned laws often provide the public with false hopes and unrealistic
expectations!" Tulisano said. "Such is the controversial gun seizure law which was ill-conceived, constitutionally questionable and, in application, has been abused and seems to have failed those we would have hoped it would protect."
Last week, a man under a restraining order whose gun permit was revoked, but whose weapons were not confiscated,
murdered his wife on the East Haven public green, and then shot himself. This shocking event has put the state's gun seizure law under scrutiny.
"The greatest danger of violence, despite our unwillingness to admit it, still exists in domestic situations," Tulisano said. "I
propose the repeal of the current controversial legislation and repair of the same by new legislation which will allow a judge when issuing either a restraining order in a civil domestic case or a protective order in a domestic violence criminal case to make an immediate finding that there is probable cause to believe there exists a continuing threat of danger or violence from the offender. I suggest further that at the hearing, which is held the next day after arrest in a domestic violence case, the judge be allowed to order the search and seizure of any dangerous weapon owned by the defendant and order them held until ordered returned by the court.
"I believe and I have communicated the same to the House Chair of the Judiciary Committee that such a new proposal
could be crafted in a constitutional manner, allow the Legislature to continue its review of the effectiveness of current gun laws and, most importantly, protect individuals who are in the greatest risk of danger.
"We must put our resources where they count, and make our laws more meaningful," Tulisano said.
|
|
July 25, 2000
TULISANO ISSUES CONSUMER ALERT
State Representative Richard D. Tulisano (D-Rocky Hill) is encouraging residents to take full advantage of
Connecticut's first "tax holiday" Sunday, August 20 to Saturday, August 26, when consumers can buy clothing and footwear less than $300 tax-free.
Tulisano said the Legislature voted to adopt the tax-free week after seeing the great success other states and New York
City reported when they offered similar tax exclusions. Tulisano also sponsored legislation reducing the sales tax on clothing and shoes year-round - from tax charged on items $50 and above to tax charged on items $75 and above. That change took effect July 1, 2000. But he said the tax-free week in August will help particularly with parents buying new clothes and footwear for students returning to school in the fall.
"We hope that the tax-free week will help consumers take full advantage of the many retail outlets right here in
Connecticut for their back-to-school shopping, and to get the normally higher-priced items such as winter boots or coats," Tulisano said. "This tax exclusion will also count for items on sale that go below the $300 price. I believe this will be a great help to consumers and, we hope, a boon for our retail industry."
The tax holiday does not include athletic clothing or footwear, nor does it include jewelry, handbags, luggage, watches
or similar accessories. But Tulisano said the essentials will be covered, and the tax exclusion will apply to clothing and footwear items reduced to below $300 by cash discount sales, coupons, layaways and any other sale offered by the retailer. |
|
June 12, 2000
TULISANO OBJECTS TO PROPOSED SEARCHES OF OVERSEAS MAIL
Says permission to search mail would erode 4th amendment rights
State Representative Richard D. Tulisano (D-Rocky Hill) said he strongly objects to the United States Customs Service
request that Congress grant permission for searches of mail destined for overseas. A congressional hearing held just prior to Memorial Day on this request drew Tulisano's ire.
"The continuing erosion of 4th amendment rights and the willingness of legislators to support such erosions in the name
of 'safety' or 'crime control' is a grave change in attitudes which, in my opinion, does not bode well for the democratic principles for which so many have died," Tulisano said. "It is ironic that such a hearing was held on the eve of a holiday that honors the fallen heroes of our country."
Tulisano said there are risks in maintaining our freedom, and one of those risks is that some of the guilty will go free as
we protect not only the innocent, but also the rights of all Americans who expect the government to leave them alone in their private lives.
"Such invasions of privacy should be recognized as being inappropriate. If probable cause is found, then the government
has ample opportunity to obtain a search warrant and proceed as necessary," Tulisano said.
Tulisano has written to all the members of Connecticut's congressional delegation asking them to vote against the
proposal to grant the Customs Service permission to search the mail.
"Please vote against any such proposal, or we may as well extend permission to private carriers to search mail at will,
removing our rights of liberty and privacy. The burden is ours," Tulisano wrote in his letter. |
|
May 18, 2000
TULSANO ANNOUNCES STATE BUDGET WINDFALL FOR ROCKY HILL
State Representative Richard D. Tulisano (D-Rocky Hill) announced that Rocky Hill will receive an unexpected gift
$127,420 of state budget surplus funds, to be spent by the town as it wishes.
These funds are a one-shot revenue to towns due to the unexpectedly large state surplus.
"It's only right that we give these surplus funds back to the towns where decisions on how and where to spend the money
can be made on the local level, without stipulation from the state," Tulisano said.
"Since I believe that we can anticipate a slowing of the growth which has created this surplus, I urge the town to use these
funds wisely for items not recurring, but of special need," Tulisano said. |
|
May 18, 2000
REPRESENTATIVE TULISANO ANNOUNCES LAND CONVEYANCE
TO ROCKY HILL
State Representative Richard D. Tulisano (D-Rocky Hill), House Majority Whip, announced today that the Department
of Public Works today conveyed 75 acres of land to the town of Rocky Hill, based on legislation Tulisano introduced in the 1998 and 1999 legislative sessions.
The parcel of land going from state ownership to the town is adjacent to the Veteran's Home and Hospital on West
Street and Elm Ridge Park.
"This is excellent news for both the town and the Veteran's Home," Rep. Tulisano said. "By bringing this land under the
stewardship of the town, we gain local control and thus the opportunity to preserve it for future public use."
Tulisano said the location of the property at the center of Rocky Hill can make it a focal point for the development of
additional recreation facilities for residents.
"My hope is that we can make this area for multi-generational use," Tulisano said, with facilities that would be for
children's and adults' use.
The identification of land to be conveyed was made possible through discussions between Rep. Tulisano, local Rocky
Hill officials in the Town Manager's Office and the Parks and Recreation Department, the state Office of Policy and Management and the Department of Public Works.
Rep. Tulisano added, "This is a great example of what can be accomplished with cooperation at all levels of government.
I thank the local and state officials who made this acquisition possible." |
|
February 18, 2000
TULISANO VOICES STRONG CONCERNS TO FEDS ON PROPOSED HEALTH
PRIVACY REGULATIONS
State Representative Richard D. Tulisano (D-Rocky Hill, Hartford), a strong defender of individual rights, today
expressed his outrage to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services about proposed federal health privacy regulations, saying they do not go far enough to protect citizens. The Congressional intent was to establish privacy standards. It is clear that the proposals do not enhance, but infringe upon an individual's privacy.
"These proposed regulations are nothing but a façade, a charade," Tulisano said.
Two of the stated purposes for the regulations are to allow health information to be disclosed without an individual's
authorization for certain national priority purposes, and to create a set of "fair" information practices to inform people of how their information is used and disclosed.
" 'Fairness' should not be the regulations' goal. The goal should be to maximize patients' rights. The European Union's
directives concerning information issues should serve as a model for accessing patients' information," Tulisano said. "Given the stated purpose, an exception should be made only for a national emergency, which the regulations should define. No exceptions should be allowed for law enforcement, judicial, or other purposes."
The proposed regulations apply only to "protected health information" that is transmitted electronically or maintained in a
computer system, which is inadequate according to Tulisano.
"Why should a provider be allowed to disclose patient information before, but not after it is entered in a computer?"
Tulisano said. "And why don't the regulations include pharmacies, which have information that is just as precious to individual privacy as their medical records. Just because information is not in the computer doesn't mean it doesn't need to be protected."
The proposal also calls for permitted entities - health plans, providers and clearinghouses - which remove "personally
identifiable information" to escape liability. The problem with this provision, Tulisano said, is that "there is no way for a record to remain useful and have enough protected health information removed or sufficiently decoded so that no one can identify the subject."
The proposed regulations permit the covered entities to disclose protected health information to people they hire to do
work for them, under contract including terms to ensure that the protected health information remains confidential.
"The regulations say a business partner that discloses information in violation of the contract can be sued for breach of
contract. What good does that do?" Tulisano said. "That won't help the individual recapture the disclosed information and may not sufficiently compensate the person for the loss. How can anyone anticipate how information that is illegally obtained will be used? And if it cannot be anticipated, how can the individual subject to the breach ever be adequately compensated?"
The regulations allow the covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officers. But
Tulisano maintains safeguards should be in place to insure that police officers need the information, and that they could not get it elsewhere. Officers should be required to obtain a warrant for the information from a neutral magistrate.
The proposals call for the free flow of information for treatment, payment and health care operations without any input
from the subject.
"Simply, the individual ought to have some say in who should get the protected health information, and for what
purpose," Tulisano said. And under the regulations, individuals could file complaints with the secretary, who could conduct an investigation. Tulisano said individuals should have a private right of action to enforce their rights under the regulations. |
|
October 8, 2000
CRUEL, UNUSUAL AND TOO INFLUENCED BY CHANCE
It has become abundantly clear that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, just as it was meant to be
understood by the Founding Fathers.
The selective or irregular application of a severe punishment or implementation of such a punishment in an arbitrary or
discriminatory manner is what the Eighth Amendment was meant to prevent.
In an attempt to avoid accusations that supporting and implementing the death penalty is not cruel and unusual, constituents
and legislators alike delude themselves into believing that resorting to sanitized clinical procedures when implementing state-sponsored homicide somehow makes it less cruel and unusual.
Since supporters of the death penalty can provide no empirical evidence of the efficacy of the death penalty in deterring
murder, they cite public opinion as a basis and reason for its continued existence.
As we have learned from polls, public opinion on whether to have a death penalty ebbs and flows depending upon the
vagaries of the day and whether or not the criminal act is perceived to be heinous or not. In any particular case, public opinion is also often shaped by news coverage, the age of the victim, the existence or not of outraged kin of the victim, the color or ethnicity of either the victim or the perpetrator.
The outrage not only felt but also expressed or the lack of a public or family outcry often shapes the possible fate of a
particular individual rather than any objective factors. Chance plays as much of a role in a death penalty case as it plays in a poker game. When 12 people on a jury are all going to be influenced one way or another in how they look at evidence, being on trial with death at stake becomes as sure as the luck of the draw.
State's attorneys are also not insulated from the same factors when making a decision as to whom they will charge with a
capital offense.
Recent studies have shown that in the federal system one is more likely to be charged in a capital offense and sentenced to
death row in some jurisdictions rather than others, again, because discretion is arbitrarily applied. This has prompted movement at the federal level to establish better guidelines for federal prosecutors in making such determinations - an impossible task, I might add.
In Connecticut, can it be any different? Will not the various state's attorneys in the various judicial districts be affected
differently by public opinion, evaluate evidence differently, be influenced by outside voices and prioritize based on backlog and resources available?
Does not the willingness of a defendant to cop a plea, to turn state's evidence or cut an empathetic figure also become part
of the mix of deciding who will or will not stand to be jeopardized by the ultimate punishment?
It can be argued that all of these factors are true in all criminal proceedings, and I acknowledge that to be true. We must
understand and try to limit these factors in order to put more justice in our justice system. But once the death penalty is invoked there is no going back, no restitution for those wrongly convicted. It is this vagueness, finality and arbitrariness that make the death penalty, even in Connecticut, cruel and unusual.
Here in Connecticut, we have recently changed our death penalty statute to, as proponents said, "make it easier to
implement." Yet today, we hear many seeking to change it again because our Supreme Court has found the death penalty difficult to apply in particular cases. This is an example of how the continued use of the death penalty lends itself to political manipulation and continued arbitrary application.
The history of western civilization teaches that it is far too easy for state authorities to use public safety as an excuse to
justify violence against their own citizens. The historical reality of Western Europe is one reason why our friends and allies maintain their opposition while the United States shares the company of China, Saudi Arabia and the Congo in our continued support of the death penalty. |
|
September 28, 2000
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HONOR REPRESENTATIVE TULISANO
State Rep. Richard D. Tulisano, D-Rocky Hill, has been awarded the Champion of Liberty award from the Connecticut
Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
In a speech at a recent awards dinner, association President David Moraghan praised Tulisano for his support of individual
rights, the right to privacy and the right to legal counsel.
A staunch civil libertarian, Tulisano, 60, was credited for passage of a law that eliminates the three-year statute of
limitations to petition for a new trial, if the petition is based on DNA evidence that was not available at the time of the original trial.
Tulisano, who is a lawyer, was also lauded by the organization, made up of criminal defense attorneys, for calling for a
moratorium on Connecticut executions because he believes Congress has curtailed the court's power to review capital cases and cut funding for attorneys representing death row inmates.
Moraghan said Tulisano is not soft on crime, nor insensitive to the pain of crime victims. Rather, he has stood as a
"defender of protections that all citizens are to be afforded under the Constitution," and always votes his conscience.
"Seldom are citizens vigilant of the rights of an accused until they, a friend, or a member of their family have been denied
their rights," said Tulisano. "That's why people have to fight for those things, and make sure the law is better for everybody."
Tulisano formerly served as house chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and since 1995 has been majority whip of the
House. He is seeking a 14th term in the 29th House District, which includes Rocky Hill and portions of Wethersfield and Hartford. |