Rowland Shows Political Importance Of Snow

By Matthew Daly

Associated Press

HARTFORD — Perhaps he was chastened by the memory of Gov Thomas Meskill, who famously stayed on an out-of-state ski trip while Connecticut suffered through a 1973 ice storm.

Or maybe he was inspired by Gov Ella Grasso, who did everything during a 1978 blizzard except drive a snowplow on Interstate 84.

§Whatever his motivation, Gov John Rowland acted decisively in this week’s snowstorm – closing the state to tractor-trailers and appearing on TV nearly continuously from Sunday afternoon through Tuesday morning to give updates on the slow-moving nor’easter.

“I’m running out of sweaters,” Gov Rowland joked Tuesday as he appeared at his fifth news conference in a 41-hour period.

The governor’s light mood contrasted with his appearance Monday evening, when he grew impatient at repeated questions about his controversial truck ban, which enraged many truckers and prompted second-guessing from around the nation.

But many state officials said Tuesday that Gov Rowland acted prudently in placing public safety before private commerce.

Whatever the final verdict in the court of public opinion, Gov Rowland’s experience demonstrated again that in Connecticut, what a governor does during a major weather event matters – and is remembered.

Gov Meskill paid a political price for his failure to return home, dropping out of the 1974 governor’s race. Gov Grasso’s blizzard exploits, meanwhile, all but assured her reelection nine months later.

Gov Rowland denied Tuesday that politics played a role in any of his decisions.

“I’m not sure I want to dignify the question” with an answer, he snapped, before going on to give a lengthy response.

The bottom line, Gov Rowland said, was that the ban on truck traffic was a reasonable precaution aimed at saving lives.

“I’d sure rather be here with a couple of angry truckers than a couple of deaths,” he said.

To drive home the point, Gov Rowland twice cited the comment of an Illinois trucker to The Hartford Courant: “Ain’t no freight worth your life,” said Michael Rury of Marissa, Ill.

“I think that’s well said, because safety is important,” Gov Rowland said.

Even one of Gov Rowland’s critics said the Republican governor could not be faulted for his emphasis on safety.

But Democrat Bill Curry, who ran against Gov Rowland in 1994 and is a possible opponent in 2002, questioned Gov Rowland’s refusal to lift the ban after the storm failed to deliver its expected punch by Monday afternoon.

“As the hours went on and the storm didn’t materialize, you can’t help but wonder whether it was concern for public safety or public perception that kept the administration from reversing course – or at least amending the initial directive,” Mr Curry said.

Given the uncertainty of the forecast, Gov Rowland could have warned truckers of a likely ban while waiting to impose it, Mr Curry said.

As it was, the truck ban took effect at 5 am Monday, 12 hours before most of the state began to see heavy snow. That gap prompted many truckers to question the wisdom of Gov Rowland’s order, which the industry said cost truckers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Michael Riley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, an industry lobbying group, stopped short of labeling the truck ban a bad decision.

But Mr Riley said diplomatically, “the economics of banning trucks” should be a key consideration the next time the issue comes up.

The ban on tractor-trailers was the first such prohibition since 1978, when the Legislature gave the governor power to restrict traffic in the interest of public safety.

By erring on the side of caution, Gov Rowland did the right thing, said Fairfield University Professor John Orman.

“He showed leadership,” Mr Orman said. “He was on top of his game. Luckily the storm didn’t turn out to be bad as we thought it was going to be.”