Q&A With Rep. Albis

James Albis' first assignment as East Haven's new state representative is to listen to something he's heard all his life. As the newest member of the Judiciary Committee, Monday morning Albis will hear arguments for making changes in the probate court system. The hometown boy's father is former Probate Judge Michael Albis. A nice head start.

Rep. Albis, 26, is coming into the legislature at a particularly difficult time with a projected $3.5-billion state deficit and Gov. Dan Malloy's controversial budget proposal with numerous tax hikes. Albis was sworn into office last Friday after winning the Feb. 22 special election. In addition to the Judiciary, he'll sit on the Finance and Banks committees -- committees that are in charge of tackling two hot-button issues: the budget and the overturning of the death penalty.

The elected post pays $28,000 a year and comes with a $4,500 expense account, 50-cent-per-mile reimbursement for work travel and benefits including health care

 As the new kid on the capitol block, Albis said he's acutely aware he's got a lot to learn -- and fast. Here are comments from an interview Sunday in his Edward Street home.

East Haven Patch: Whom will you look to for guidance in Hartford?

James Albis: (Former East Haven state Rep.) Mike Lawlor has told me time and again his door is always open. I've met some other legislators along the way. (Senate Majority Leader) Marty Looney I've known for a long time. He was at my swearing-in. I've met the speaker of the House, Chris Donavon, and the House majority leader, Brendan Sharkey, and they're both very nice people. And the one thing they said, 'Don't be afraid to ask questions.'

EHP: Are you afraid to ask questions?

JA: I can't afford to be.

EHP: Do you think you'll solicit advice from Republican lawmakers?

JA: Yeah, I think I certainly will. (State Rep.) Vinnie Candelora made a point to introduce himself to me Friday and suggested the two of us get together with (state Sen.) Len Fasano. So, yeah, I think I will be soliciting advice from Republicans. I don't want to shut myself out.

EHP: Let's talk about Malloy's proposed budget. You've read it. What jumps out at you?

JA: I'm not thrilled that the property-tax credit (up to a $500 refund) has been eliminated.

EHP: How much is that cut supposed to save the state?

JA: I'm not sure. I know that that's something that really helps out a lot of middle-class families.

EHP: Would you vote against that even if virtually all Democrats voted in favor?

JA: I don't think you can vote against one specific part of the budget.

EHP: In committee you can.

JA: In committee, yeah. Again, I don't want to make any commitments yet to how I'd be voting. But if I can work it out that it's still intact, I'd like to.

EHP: How do you feel about Malloy's proposed tax hikes?

JA: Well, I think some of the items that are proposed not to be exempt, I think it makes sense. Luxury cars -- cars over $50,000 -- will have a luxury tax. Yoga studios. That makes sense because you have Pilates studios that are taxed and yoga studios aren't. I'm not thrilled about the tax on clothing under $50.

EHP: How about the income tax?

JA: I believe for somebody making $60,000, it's only going up $70 a year. I think it's good that a more progressive system has been proposed. I think Connecticut surely needs that.

EHP: What would a progressive system look like here?

JA: Currently, I think there are two tax brackets, and with the new proposal there will be six or seven. It (would start) at 3 percent for people who make under $40,000 a year, and then from $40,000 to $100,000, it's 5 percent. Now it's 3 percent up to $60,000. The highest I believe is 6.7 percent for people making either over $800,000 or over a million dollars.

EHP: What about the sales tax?

JA: It would go up a quarter of a percent. There's the option for municipalities to raise it up to 6.35 percent for their particular town. The thinking behind it is the extra .1 percent would go back to the town. It could help with property-tax relief.

EHP: When you talk about state tax, local tax, federal tax, the argument is everybody has to pay all of them so it doesn't really matter who's taxing you.

JA: I think you're right. I think a lot of people don't realize that and when they hear taxes, they think 'I'm getting hit so hard.'

EHP: What's your response?

JA: I think it's a delicate balance of knowing what to tax and how to do it effectively and how to use the tax money effectively. I mean, let's face it, nobody likes to pay taxes but you have to and we're in such a position now that the state has to do something drastic to get back on its feet and unfortunately that means raising state taxes. But you have to figure out how to do it without burying these middle-class families, these low-income families.

EHP: How do you do that?

JA: I think what Gov. Malloy is saying, with shared sacrifices.

EHP: What does that mean?

JA: That means that everybody will be suffering.

EHP: How does that keep certain families from being buried?

JA: Everybody's taxes will increase a small amount, especially for the people who earn more. I want to also look to see if maybe we could work it out so that higher earners are paying even a little bit more. I don't think we should be punishing them for their hard work, but at the same time we can't let these middle-class families and these low-income families suffer.

EHP: Any murmurs about taxing the assets of the wealthy?

JA: I haven't heard any talk about that but again that is something that could ease the burden off the rest of us.

EHP: Every year, Democrats vote to abolish the death penalty and the Republican governor vetoes it. This year it could fly since Gov. Malloy said he'd sign it into law. Your thoughts?

JA: Being on the Judiciary Committee I'll be hearing all the arguments before it gets on the floor of the House. So that will be very interesting. So I've said to you in the past that my view on the death penalty is I'm not philosophically opposed but I do think in current practice it doesn't make sense and it doesn't work and I'd be in favor of abolishing it.

EHP: What about death-penalty advocates, such as your opponent in the special election, who say it can be fixed? Connecticut allows unlimited appeals and that's why virtually no one gets put to death and why it costs more than life in prison. If a plan was presented to you that said -- and I'm just making this up -- there would be a maximum of three appeals and a five-year window from sentencing to execution, would you feel differently?

JA: I might, but what I worry about is that there's the possibility of putting an innocent person to death.

EHP: Do you think there still is much of a possibility with the ability to gather DNA evidence?

JA: In the past two years, we've had four people in Connecticut who were convicted of capital crimes ending up innocent.

EHP: How long ago where they convicted?

JA: Years ago.

EHP: Before DNA testing?

JA: Well, DNA testing isn't something new in the last two years.

EHP: There may not have been DNA testing at the time they were convicted years ago. Were they found innocent two years ago because of DNA testing?

JA: I'm not positive. I imagine that's the case for at least some of them, but I'm not positive. In current practice, anyway, it costs the state too much money; it cost $4 million a year just to keep the system intact. That includes the litigation, that includes putting them up in prison.

EHP: It probably wouldn't cost $4 million if there was a limited appeals process.

JA: Yeah, that's true. But I do feel the appeals process is an important part of it and to compromise that process  compromises the whole system. So it would have to be the most perfect plan for me to support it. Some people argue it's a deterrent, but I don't think it's clear-cut that it's a deterrent. So to me it would make much more sense to take that $4 million a year and put it into law enforcement and get some actual results. The other argument is, if you were the family of a victim how would you feel? I've read some letters from victims' families that say this whole process is taking a toll on us because we have to grieve in the public eye. On television, in the newspaper. And if the death penalty weren't an option, as soon as the case is done and the person is put into prison, that's it. People forget about it.

EHP: But you said philosophically you don't have a problem with the government taking an eye for an eye.

JA: Yes, if you do something terrible you deserve to have something terrible done to you.

EHP: Have you thought about the pressure you'll get from within your party on how to vote? If you disagree, do you think you could be firm in your conviction?

JA: As long as I'm communicating my feelings to my party, unless it was a vote they really needed.

EHP: So if you're adamantly against a certain bill but your vote was needed, you'd oblige?

JA: I'd like to think I would vote against it. But I haven't been in that situation yet so again it depends on how strongly I feel about it, how it would affect the people of East Haven. With all my decisions I want to try to have the people of East Haven in mind and my true feelings in mind.

EHP: If you could accomplish one thing this term, what would it be?

JA: That's a tough question. (Mayor) April (Capone) and (mayoral aide) Paul (Hongo) have spoken to me about the possibility of making the town and Board of Ed separate and to have separate mill rates. That's something I think makes sense. I need to do a little research and see if any other states have implemented practices like that.

EHP: How could that be useful?

JA: I think it makes the Board of Ed a little more accountable because the town sets the mill rate and the fact that the town doesn't have any control over the Board of Ed budget. I think it would force (the Board of Ed) to be more accountable. It would cause them to look at efficiencies a little closer.