RETURN DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2010 SUPERIOR COURT TOWN OF MONTVILLE J.D. OF NEW LONDON vs. NEW LONDON STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL. OCTOBER 22, 2010 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMI ‘AID INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FIRST COUNT: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff, the Town of Montville (“Town” or “Montville”), is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the state of Connecticut. 2, The defendant, the state of Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”), is a state agency with offices located at 24 Woleott Hill Road, Wethersfield, Connecticut, 3. The defendant, state of Connecticut Court Support Services Division (“CSSD”), is a division of the state of Connecticut Judicial Branch, with offices located at 936 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield, Connecticut 4, The defendant, Leo Amone, is the Commissioner of the DOC. This action is brought against Mr. Arnone solely in his official capacity as the DOC’s Commissioner. 5. The defendant, William Carbone, is the Executive Director of the CSSD. This yfossowiSbenRO Woo. Brea, Gray & Grexxena, PC. HE coURENEY ILE, STE 6,2 UNON Fah ost ONCE BOX EW LONDOR.CONMEETCU Gx TEL ete NUNS NO. ceaction is brought against Mr. Carbone solely in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the SD. 6. The defendant, The Connection, Incorporated (“TCI”), is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Connecticut, whose principal place of business is at 955 S, Main St, Middletown, Connecticut 7. §§ 19 and 20 of January Special Session, Public Act 08-1 (the “08 Act”), each effective from passage, directed the DOC and the CSSD, respectively, inter alia, to “contract for twelve beds in staff secure residential sex offender treatment facilities for occupancy not later than July 1, 2008” and “to report to the General Assembly not later than April 15, 2008 .. concerning the progress made in contracting for such beds, including the number of beds contracted for as of the date of such report ... and any obstacles encountered or foreseen in making such beds available.” 8. § 33 of the 08 Act, effective from passage, “established a committee to study the manner in which the state may effectively provide incentives to municipalities ... to allow the siting of community-based facilities such as halfway houses and transitional and supportive housing for offenders released into the community”, prescribed the makeup of the committee, and directed that the committee “report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly ... not later than January 1, 2009". {8096p SoapENsWoor, Baewnan, Grav & GREENBERG, BG. tHe COURTNEY BUONO, SUTE 200 2 UNION FLAZA, POST OFFICE BOX 15919. Inpurported compliance with the reporting requirements of §§ 19 and 20 of the 08 Act, DOC and CSSD released a document with the title “Residential Sex Offender Treatment Facilities Progress Report April 2008” (the “Report”). The Report noted that DOC and CSSD. were “developing a collaborative REP ...” to obtain proposals from contractors to provide the services contemplated by the 08 Act. The Report also stated that the chairperson of the committee called for by the 08 Act “to establish the manner in which the state may effectively provide incentives to municipalities to allow the siting of community-based facilities for released offenders ... is aware” of the anticipation “that the siting and zoning of any residential sex offender program may prove difficult ...” and that the chairperson “is willing to raise the topic for review and support.” 10, The DOC and the CSSD issued a request for proposal identified as “RFP 4 DOC ~ $0-09-RB”, and entitled “Sex Offender Residential Services” (“09 RFP”). The 09 REP called for the release of a request for proposals on August 10, 2008, for all proposals to be due on November 5, 2008, and for an anticipated program start date of November 2, 2008. Provisions of the 09 RFP included: 2 DOC and CSSD intended to establish the first residential program specifically designated for sex offenders. Heretofore, neither agency had established or operated (OS6RSUNG HGH! POOL, BRIWWAN, Geny & GazeNseRe, HE, we courNer RULING SITE 20,2 UNION PLAZA, POST OFMEE ROX 58such a facility, although they had collaborated on the provision of a non-residential sex offender program through a contract with TCI; b. Creation of a sex offender residential treatment program with a work release component for male offenders over the age of eighteen “in a metropolitan area’; c. Treatment for the sexual offense or problematic sexual behavior of each, offender was to be provided by TCI. The contractor awarded the contract pursuant to the 09 REP ‘was to negotiate a contract with TCI, 4. ‘The residents of the facility were to obtain offsite jobs and pay rent and in association with those activities the contractor was to open savings accounts on their behalf; and e. Proposals submitted in response to the 09 REP were to “describe the anticipated impact on recidivism”, suggesting that neither DOC nor CSSD knows what that impact would be. 11. Subsequently, DOC issued “RFP # DOC: SO-10-JH/Community Residential Sex Offender Treatment Services” (“2010 RFP”). CSSD was not an issuer of the 2010 RFP. The 2010 REP had a “Planning Start Date” of December 1, 2009 and was to be released on January 12, 2010. It had a deadline for submissions of March 8, 2010, a proposer selection date of April 1, 2010 and a start of contract date of July 1, 2010. Provisions of the 2010 RFP include: (Busso0e Saveas Woon, Bnewnan, Gent & Gremuseto; AG. nae couINEY BUILDING SUTE 20,2 UNION PLAZA. POST OFF BOX)‘The DOC does not operate a residential program specifically designated for sex offenders even though it collaborates with CSSD to provide a non-residential sex offender program contracted through TCI for treatment of such offenders. DOC “has identified sex offenders as a target population in need of residential services upon reentry into the community”; b, ‘DOC sought through the 2010 RFP to establish a twelve bed congregate residential male sex offender treatment program; c. The “Purpose/Mission/Philosophy” of the program was “to assist sex offenders in obtaining sustainable employment while providing baseline case management and treatment services in a staff-secure congregate setting to support successful reintegration into the community upon the offenders’ release”; | 4. Proposers were “not required to obtain possession of physical space or zoning compliance prior to submission of a proposal”, although preference was to be given to proposals that indicated possession of space and zoning compliance; €. _Proposers were to affirm that “space and zoning were to be secured prior to program availability”; £ Sites were to comply with both local zoning and with ADA standards; (sGrpeyins SerensWoot, Bruin, Gray & GREENBERG 8G, Te COURTNEY EUEDNC,SATE205 ZUM FLAZA, FST ORF Bx 191 EW LONDON CONNECT OD TEL.) Le ISO. Ieg. Treatment at any such facility was to be provided by and in association with TCI, and a successful bidder was to “maintain a contractual relationship with [TCT] for appropriate treatment services”; and h. Under the heading “Case Management Services”, the 2010 RFP included a “mandatory” component requiring “[u}pon employment, contractors will be expected to establish a savings account for each offender”. 12. Upon information and belief, TCI submitted the only proposal made in response to the 2010 RFP. 13. On May 4, 2010 and May $, 2010, the State Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, enacted PA 10-112, section 4 of which prescribes requirements for requests for proposals issued by the DOC or the CSSD for a residential sexual offenider treatment facility pursuant to §§19 or 20 of the 08 Act (the “2010 Act’), Among other things, PA 10-112 §4 a. Required the DOC or the CSSD to “require any person, firm or corporation submitting a proposal ... to identify at least five proposed sites in various geographical locations around the state for consideration”, b, Established criteria by which such proposed sites were to be evaluated, including, but not limited to, the proximity of a proposed si to: i Municipal parks, recreational facilities, youth services facilities and senior centers, \Besss Steps HOO, BRENNAN, GRAY & GreEsie, 6G. nur COUrINEY BUILDING, SUITE 2002 UMON PLAZA FOST OPMCE BOX NEN LONDON. CONNECRCUT G60 TELS) tis UREN, 184