To The State Senators of Connecticut,
Raised Bill #6942 an Act Concerning The Connecticut False Claims Act,
should be passed this session.
When it was introduced as HB5602 last year, Atty. Genl. Richard
Blumenthal spoke in favor of it strongly.
This Act provides the State of Connecticut with a potent platform by
which to become knowledgeable of false claims conducted by businesses and industry based
both inside and outside of Connecticut where the State of Connecticut would otherwise
never obtain this information. Further, this act allows for ordinary citizens and/or
workers who are being forced or harassed within their work environment to remain silent
relative to false claims being made in Connecticut which could result in tremendous sums
of money denied the State of Connecticut.
I would recommend just the following changes, yet still strongly
recommend that this bill be passed this legislative session.
Lines 49 and 50 should be changed to reflect either a percentage of the
damages found to have been incurred by the false claim or significantly increased.
If the damages were found to exceed, lets say, $190 million dollars or
more, the maximum fine of $10,000.00 is ridiculous and sends no message to other
businesses generating false claims in the State of Connecticut.
Lines 97 through 101 should be changed to reflect that the discovery
false claims should be retroactive to when the first false claim was generated. Not unlike
the State DEP that can assign "responsible party" status to the pollution of a
landfill or property site going back over 50 years, as has been the case for the Laurel
Park Landfill in Naugatuck, there should be a direct reference to retroactivity without
time limit, or at a minimum...50 years.
And in conclusion, Lines 336 through 346 should be removed. It assumes
that the person bringing the information to the State of Connecticut might be considered
"disruptive" to the proceedings where just the opposite might be true, yet the
participation of the original informant to the State of Connecticut may have expert or
professional or relevant inside knowledge of the false claim that the State prosecutors do
not understand or are being influenced by the business or industry which generated the
false claim.
No restriction should be placed upon the original informant. In the
course of the various discovery procedures this statute invokes, there is no need for such
limitations to be placed upon the original informant.
I would like this letter, as transmitted to Robert Shea, to reflect my
official position relative to my recommendation that Raised Bill #6942 be passed this
legislative session.
The 3 minute limitation on public comments on this important
legislation were woefully inadequate to address the issues I have in this letter.
Thank You for the opportunity to place my comments in the record
relative to
Raised Bill #6942
Sincerely,
Robert X. Shuster
4/16/99
