Three weeks ago, legislators warned Gov. Ned Lamont’s nominee for Connecticut’s prison oversight effort that she needed to make immediate progress in building relationships with community advocates to secure a favorable vote in the House and Senate.
On Tuesday, Hilary Carpenter faced the first public litmus test to gauge that progress as she listened to harsh criticism about the events that led to her nomination and her choice to not withdraw her candidacy.
“I want Hilary to know it’s nothing personal against you as a person,” said Barbara Fair, the leading organizer for Stop Solitary Connecticut, the advocacy organization that arranged the event at the Legislative Office Building, held in part to directly address Carpenter. “You’ll never know our pain.”
The advocates are also demanding more integrity in the selection process of the ombudsperson, who, among other responsibilities, will independently conduct site visits, communicate with incarcerated people, review agency records and draft a yearly report on confinement conditions in the Department of Correction.
“There’s a lot of things that have gone wrong,” said Rep. Robyn Porter, D-New Haven, a member of Stop Solitary. “And it goes back to that key word: integrity. And it’s unfair for us to have to be here today belaboring this issue even more than we’ve already done.”
Advocates also voiced disappointment in the legislature’s Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee decision last week to advance Carpenter’s nomination to the full legislative body, despite lawmakers opposing her candidacy just weeks before.
They expressed frustration about the three finalists for the position having to meet with Department of Correction Commissioner Angel Quiros prior to Lamont deciding who would be his nominee, despite the independent nature of the role.
And they questioned why Carpenter is deciding to stay in the race despite opposition from the advocacy community and what many feel are “backdoor politics” keeping her nomination alive.
“I am so sorry that Miss Carpenter heard from our community and didn’t feel she needed to withdraw her nomination,” said Diane Lewis, whose son was formerly incarcerated, directing her remarks at incarcerated people. “I know exactly what that tells you. I know exactly how you feel. I feel the same way: angry, disappointed and very sad. Hilary Carpenter was not my choice because she will never know how it feels to watch your child at the mercy of the injustice system that was designed to bury him from when he was born.”
Carpenter stood in silence for most of the event, declining an opportunity to stand behind the speaking podium with many of the advocates.
When allotted time to speak later on, she talked about how her nearly two decades as a public defender, helping people reduce their sentences and avoid incarceration, made her a qualified candidate for the position.
She said that she would not have applied for the position if she didn’t care deeply about Connecticut’s justice-involved population and their loved ones.
And she addressed the concerns of people who feel that the actions of legislators who supported her nomination after previously opposing it lacked integrity, revealing to the advocates that she spent time in the past several weeks talking to lawmakers about her vision for the role.
“I’m very glad that the people in this room care so much about the selection process,” Carpenter said. “I recognize that this office is incredibly important to everyone here and that it is vital that the ombuds be selected through a fair and transparent process.”
Last month, prison reform advocates relayed their concerns to legislators about Lamont bypassing Connecticut’s prison oversight committee’s recommendation and selecting Carpenter, whom the panel ranked last among the three finalists considered for the position. Civil rights attorney Kenneth J. Krayeske was first, Fair was second and Carpenter was third.
Following the advocates’ testimony, it appeared that Carpenter had a chance to make it out of the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee, where she needed approval before the House and Senate would consider her, on the condition that she make immediate progress in alleviating concerns from the advocacy community. But a rare and unexpected 8-8 vote ended with a decision not to advance her nomination.
The legislature considered the vote a recommendation that her nomination not pass, a hurdle that appeared difficult to overcome until lawmakers took advantage of a rule that allows for the reconsideration of a nomination if it occurs at the first meeting after the previous vote.
And in a committee meeting last week, many of the Republicans and one Democrat who initially voted against Carpenter’s nomination flipped their votes, resulting in a 15-2 tally, a decision that created a pathway for the House and Senate to take up her appointment in the coming weeks. Her nomination must pass through both chambers.
But on Tuesday, Krayeske, whom the Correction Advisory Committee recommended to be the ombudsperson, said he wants to know from the governor why he is not up for consideration.
“It is a rare and pride-swelling moment when I can force the governor to defy the logic of mathematics because of my advocacy,” said Krayeske, who most notably was the lead attorney in a Hepatitis C class action lawsuit, which prompted the state to drastically overhaul how it tests and treats people in prison for the deadly liver disease.
“I’m owed an explanation,” he said.
Marisol Garcia, a co-chair of the committee that recommended Krayeske, said she would rather restart the process of selecting the ombudsperson than participate in “backdoor politics.”
“Here’s the problem: the voice of the impacted community is not being heard,” said Garcia, also a member of Stop Solitary, who was formerly incarcerated. “I am here as someone from that impacted community, and, again, I say, I am not here by myself. Everybody in this room who is justice-impacted, whether it’s your family, self, that status quo does not work anymore.”
Garcia is also a member of The Connecticut Mirror’s Board of Directors.
As the more than hourlong event came to a close, some people in the room had questions for Carpenter: about her 100-day plan if appointed, what kind of feedback she had received from her clients about her nomination, and her plan to address sexual assault in the DOC.
She answered that she has plenty of institutional knowledge about the agency, has not had conversations about her nomination with her clients, and that health care is one of her top priorities, which she is willing to talk to sexual assault survivors about.
But she didn’t have much more time to answer questions, she said, because there were clients waiting for her to arrive at court.
“I have a duty to my clients, and I’m going to wrap that up with them so that I can get to work on this,” Carpenter said.
Once she left, however, it was clear that her showing up hadn’t satisfied everyone.
“That’s a concern for me — that uncomfortableness that she seems to have sitting with us,” Fair said. “And I’m sure that’s why it was quick to get out of here today when questions started coming.”