Brown / Nardello: How bout the discretionary funds?

I just emailed the following to the two candidates for the 89th House district:

To: kathy at brownforct2010.com
vnardello at aol.com
vickie.nardello at cga.ct.gov

Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Nardello:

The August 3, 2008 editorial in the Waterbury Republican American clearly explains the existence of an annual $36,000,000 discretionary fund in the state budget. You can find the editorial here.

Do you support or oppose the existence (continuance) of these discretionary funds?

Furthermore, while the Bond Commission has already voted in favor of discretionary funds over the past few years, not all of these discretionary funds have actually been spent. In relation to balancing the state budget, do you support or oppose a “clawback” of unexpended discretionary funds? (This question is related to both the $10m x 3 people that goes through the Bond Commission and the $2m x 3 people that does not go through the Bond Commission.)

Regards,
Tim White
Cheshire

(P.S. Vickie... I wasn't sure if the state address was appropriate for an election question, but also wasn't sure if you still used your AOL address. And I really am hoping for an answer on this. I've repeatedly asked the same question of Foley and Malloy and neither of them have answered yet.)

It's the same question for which I've been chasing Foley & Malloy. And neither of them will answer. Now it's time to start asking our legislators.

Tim White