The writer of September’s opinion piece draws from information provided by the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (CTLCV). What is this organization and more importantly who are the primary funders? Following the money trail is important for motivational discovery.
Based on a report from the University of Connecticut, the CTLCV is one of numerous climate advocacy organizations in Connecticut and is described as “a very active non-partisan…” This evaluation appears in contrast to CTLCV’s legislative endorsement record, which does not include a Republican in the state house and only one in the senate.
Based on publicly available IRS records, Form 990 CTLCV is a 501(c)(4) organization. This classification allows a non-profit to provide lobbying and political activity. In 2023, CTLCV possessed about $390,000 in revenue and $336,000 in expenses. Compensation to the managing and executive director totaled $130,000. Lori Brown, the executive director of CTLCV, earns a salary of about $75,000 and is a registered lobbyist at the Connecticut General Assembly. Brown was on Governor Lamont’s policy transition team providing recommendations on environmental policy.
Their primary funding of $261,500 (2024) came from the League of Conservation voters which is based in Washington DC. Additional funding came from the Hampshire Foundation in the form of $13,000 in 2023 and $40,000 in 2025. The Hampshire Foundation is a family office 501(c)(3) organization registered in Wilmington, Del. with an office on New Park Avenue in Hartford. Nicholas Cournoyer is a director-treasurer who runs another foundation based in London, United Kingdom.
One does not need to use propaganda from an advocacy group to know that Mark Anderson has a great concern for our state’s environment and particularly the pollution issues we face in Granby from major development interests adjacent to our wetlands.
Mark, in my opinion, marches in a soldier’s effort to fight on and influence the writing of legislation. Unfortunately, he has to climb a wall of resistance such as the one he and I faced when testifying at a joint senate house hearing. I attempted to provide testimony in support of Mark’s amendment to freeze installation of utility scale batteries for one year in order to evaluate toxic impacts resulting from thermal runaways. The senate chairman (D) spent his time bloviating and never bothered to ask a question on the topic. The house chairman (D) asked a “gotcha” question also not pertaining to batteries. Additionally, when I did provide an answer, he immediately ceased any further interaction. Obviously, the amendment was rejected.
Ironically, several months later the large battery installation near Monterey, Calif. caught fire and spread toxic materials discovered in the soil up to two miles away. Scientists detected a significant increase in the heavy metals nickel, manganese, and cobalt.
The question to be asked is: why do the kids on the block who own the ball, bat and baseball field want to pick on the kid who would be happy to just play right field?