With the clock ticking for legislative leaders to nullify Gov. Ned Lamont’s extension of Connecticut’s state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Republican lawmakers are urging the governor to take a more collaborative approach in his decision-making.

Lamont on Tuesday extended the state of emergency, which was due to expire on Sept. 9, until Feb. 9, 2021, meaning the governor retains his power to enact new executive orders related to the pandemic and keep existing orders in place.

The six legislative leaders and the chairs, vice-chairs and ranking members of the Public Health Committee have 72 hours to overrule Lamont’s extension. House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, indicated Wednesday that discussions were ongoing as to whether they would entertain a meeting, as requested Tuesday in a letter by House Minority Leader Themis Klarides and Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, both Republicans, to debate the extension.

“Our concern is the broad nature of the executive orders. March in Connecticut does not look anywhere near the same as September in Connecticut looks, and because of that, the way we govern has to look different,” Klarides said Wednesday during a Republican-led news conference outside the state Capitol.

Connecticut has one of the lowest COVID-19 infection rates in the country but was hit hard early in the pandemic, prompting the governor to shut down much of the state’s economy in mid-March.

Sen. Duff said by phone Wednesday afternoon that he and other Democratic leaders still are reviewing the letter from Klarides and Fasano and that “nothing has been decided yet.” Over the last six months, Connecticut has driven down its infection and hospitalization rates, he said, and subsequently reopened businesses “to a large extent” as well as schools, he said, attributing the success to the measures Lamont has put in place.

“This is not about politics. This is about public safety and public health,” he said, adding that “executive orders can be done quickly and in a nimble way, which is not something the legislature has the ability to do.”

Aresimowicz echoed his sentiments in a statement to The Day on Wednesday. “The legislature is a deliberative body with committees, hearings and protracted debate, and is not built or suited for managing a crisis that demands multiple decisions on a daily basis — it is the role of the executive branch to run the agencies and day to day operations,” he said, adding “there will certainly be much more collaboration between the branches going forward."

When asked during a news conference Wednesday whether lawmakers should have more of a formal role in deciding how the state should operate during the pandemic, Lamont said, “I welcome everybody’s input but rather than make it into more of a political process, what I’d love to do is lead with the science and then keep the legislature involved closely all along the way.”

“If you think I’m opening schools too fast, if you think I’m opening bars too slowly, if you have particular items that you feel really strongly about, come and see me. We can talk and get your point of view. But having everything up for a vote of (the 187 members of the General Assembly) is not the way to go,” he said in response to a similar question later in the news conference.

Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, a ranking member of the Public Health Committee, said in a statement Wednesday that instead of “sweepingly broad executive orders from Hartford,” more consideration should be given to how COVID-19 is impacting different communities and regions.

“This is in no way meant as a criticism of how the governor has handled the crisis, but going forward what works for Danbury isn’t necessarily what’s best for our eastern Connecticut communities. That is why we need legislators to be a part of the conversation, to ensure we have a regional approach that takes into account the situation on-the-ground in our local communities,” she said.

Sen. Paul Formica, R-East Lyme, and Rep. Kathleen McCarty, R-Waterford, a member of the Public Health Committee, both questioned the need to extend the state of emergency by five months.

“I think that’s too long. Why not check on what’s happening after a month in with everybody back to school?” Formica said.

Since the governor announced his intent to extend the state of emergency, Formica said he’s heard from constituents who “overwhelmingly” disagree with that decision.

“People are feeling like it’s time to open up things a little more, given we have controlled the virus,” he said. 

McCarty said while there was a general consensus at the outset of the pandemic that Lamont using his emergency powers was the right way to go, there seems to be an "imbalance" in power now. She said she would like more of an explanation from the governor's office as to why the extension needs to last five months, which goes well beyond the November election and the swearing in of any new members to the General Assembly.

During a listening session on the COVID-19 pandemic held Wednesday by the Appropriations, Human Services and Public Health committees, at least a handful of people who testified said they disagreed with the governor’s decision, including Stonington resident Alexis Williamson. The majority of the testimony's focus was on the impact of the outbreak on nursing homes in the state.

“We the people of Connecticut are no longer 'braving' the storm of (COVID-19), the peak has come and gone, and so now the time has come for Lamont's (executive orders) and all restrictions to also be gone," Williamson said in her testimony.

j.bergman@theday.com