Chris Powell: Minimizing college arrogance, hypocrisy; take on liquor-store lobby

MANCHESTER, Conn.

Gov. Ned Lamont is right that the expense-account exploitation perpetrated by the chancellor of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system, Terrence Cheng, and his fellow top administrators is "small ball," insofar as the financial expense goes. It doesn't compare to the hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns incurred in the New London state pier project by the Connecticut Port Authority, which haven't offended the governor either.

Even so, there is much to be offended about in the CSCU system, and it goes beyond Cheng's awarding himself the perks of royalty on top of a salary and benefit package worth a half million dollars annually while constantly pleading poverty for the higher education system, which chronically operates at a deficit and is always asking for more money.

Cheng's arrogance and hypocrisy are not "small ball" but major-league.

So is the unaccountability of the college system, which is supposed to answer to its 15-member Board of Regents. While the board includes former state House Speaker Richard J. Balducci, a Democrat, and New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart, a Republican who may run for governor, it did not rush to investigate when Connecticut's Hearst newspapers exposed Cheng's exploitation of his expense account. Instead the governor had to ask state Comptroller Sean Scanlon to investigate, apparently assuming that the Board of Regents is just for show and its members are airheads. (The governor might know, since most of the regents are his appointees.)

The regents have escaped critical questioning not just by the governor and the comptroller but also by news organizations covering the expense-account scandal. How did the regents fail to learn how Cheng and his gang were abusing their expense accounts while pleading the college system's poverty? If Cheng and his gang weren't reporting to the regents, to whom were they reporting? Who was supposed to supervise their expense claims? Apparently no one.

How do the regents justify the half million dollars in compensation conferred on Cheng every year? What is so special about his leadership? Why do they continue to let Cheng live out of state, far from his workplace? What do the regents think about the example Cheng gang has set? 

The regents are off the hook until someone bothers to ask.

Having decided to minimize the scandal, the governor probably won't be asking. 

The leaders of the Republican minority in the General Assembly, Sen. Stephen Harding, of Brookfield, and Rep. Vincent J. Candelora, of North Branford, declared that Cheng should be fired, but Democratic legislators said only that they'd welcome proposals for tighter standards for purchases by college administrators. The arrogance, hypocrisy and bad examples of the administrators seem not to bother the Democratic legislators any more than they bother the governor.

During the legislature's budget deliberations in a few weeks will the Democrats even remember the high living of the Cheng gang when they show up again to ask for more money?

BREAK THE LIQUOR LOBBY: When the legislature convenes next month Connecticut's supermarkets again may ask to be allowed to sell wine along with the beer they already sell. Most state residents would like the convenience, which is enjoyed in 42 other states. Again the problem will be the liquor stores and particularly the "mom and pop" stores, which fear that ordinary free-market competition will put them out of business.

So what if it does? Supermarkets and other retailers in Connecticut fail and close all the time and no legislators propose to restrict competition in  those  businesses. But the liquor stores purport to be special and to deserve protection against competition. They get this protection not only through the ban on supermarket sales of wine but also through the state's grotesque system of minimum prices for alcoholic beverages, which assures retailers a profit and customers high prices.

Most legislative districts have at least several "mom and pops" and statewide they form a powerful lobby against the public interest in more competition and lower prices. Will legislators dare to stand up against this special interest next year?

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years (CPowell@cox.net).