Connecticut



CCMC Committee Special MeetingTuesday, September 29, 2020 at 9:30 am. E-MeetingMeeting access was as follows:Login information:? also was possible to dial in by phone: United States:?+1 (312) 757-3121Access Code:?384-652-813Note: Special Meeting: Proposed Regulation ReviewA quorum was present, and the meeting was called to order at 9:43 am by CCMC Committee Chairman John Rainaldi. Attending by teleconference were: from the CCMC Committee: Patricia Moisio; David Kluczwski; William Donlin; and Lisa Biagiarelli. Attending from the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) were Martin Heft and Jennifer Gauthier. John noted that the minutes of the September 3, 2020 meeting had been sent and made available prior to this meeting. Patricia made a motion to waive the reading of the minutes and to approve them. William seconded. All were in favor. There was no Treasurer’s report.John raised the issue of the new proposed Recertification regulations, and reported that the Legislative Regulation Review Committee (LRRC) held a virtual meeting on September 22, 2020 at which our proposed re-certification regulations were reviewed. He and Martin attended the meeting. The proposed regulations were “rejected without prejudice.” There was a six page report issued from the Legislative Commissioner’s Office to the LRRR with various technical and substantive concerns. For the sake of accuracy and simplicity, a copy of the LRRC’s report is attached to these minutes. (Attachment 1). Martin said we have the opportunity to act on their suggested changes and re-submit revised regulations within thirty (30) days. The process will involve OPM submitting the revised regulations to the Attorney General’s office; that office reviews it and then it goes back to the LRRC. There were a significant number (29) of small changes due to language and / or consistency and four “substantive” changes that the LRRC identified as problems. The discussion first focused on the four substantive issues, in sequence. The first objection was that our statement of purpose for the proposed regulations was incomplete in that it did not specify how recertification would apply to tax collectors who have already achieved certification. They asked for clarification on this. The Committee felt we could state we intended it to apply to all tax collectors, including those who had already achieved their designation. The second substantive concern had to do with the staggered cycle, and lack of clarity on how we intended it to work. They were looking for clarification on how the cycle would be implemented and who would be making decisions about it. As with the previous concern, we needed to clarify and provide some details about how the “rolling” schedule would work. It is our intent to allow currently certified tax collectors to re-certify within a five year period at the rate of approximately 20% of the entire group of current CCMCs per year. Once all currently certified collectors had re-certified, everybody would be on a regular five year schedule. The third substantive concern asked for clarification on what was needed for a complete recertification application, and under what circumstances would the Committee deny an application. The Committee had discussed the requirements, including 50 hours of continuing education, and that those 50 hours had to be with courses that were approved or pre-approved by the Committee to earn continuing education credits (CEUs). If an applicant did not complete the required 50 hours, or if some of the courses were not approved, that would be grounds for denial of the application. Martin suggested we should check with the assessors’ regulations for recertification and see if there was specific language in that section that we could mirror. There was significant discussion about what would constitute a complete application and what would be grounds for denial. The final substantive concern required us to specify what recourse an applicant had if their application for recertification was denied by the Committee. They asked the Committee to clarify if the applicant had to retake and pass the comprehensive examination, qualify under the regular or an alternate method, or both. The Committee agreed to look at the language in the section 12-40(a) 12 and 12-40(a) 11(d) and use this language when specifying a reason for denying an application. The Committee would recommend denial of the application, and be required to notify the applicant within two (2) days. Martin felt we needed to specify that if a denial was upheld, we also needed to specify that it was the CCMC Committee making the decision. Martin reiterated the timeline and indicated that the Committee needed to address all the issues, put together a new proposal, and then OPM would submit it to the Attorney General’s office as a revision. That office would then send it back to the LRRR. We have until October 22, 2020 to resubmit. Martin and Jennifer agreed to work on the 29 technical and language issues and revisions and Lisa agreed to attempt to re-write language to address the four substantive issues. We would each be responsible for sending these revisions out to the Committee in advance of our next meeting. Officially it is OPM’s role to resubmit the revised proposal, but the CCMC Committee would have to meet again to discuss and vote on the revisions. Our next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 9 am. It was agreed that the revisions discussed should be put in writing, sent out, and reviewed by the Committee members in advance of that date, so they can be discussed and voted on at that meeting. There was no other old or new business. William made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:21 AM; seconded by Lisa. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Lisa Biagiarelli, Secretary ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download