If Connecticut Earmarks Could Speak!

If Connecticut's earmarks could speak, what would they tell us as voters? The Connecticut legislature speaks when they propose bond money awards to towns for various undertakings that include such recent actions as:
1. New tennis courts in Seymour and Middlebury
2. Walkway along a stream in Watertown

The governor chairs the bond commission and therefore controls the agenda with the monies and items to be considered. Garnering the governor's favor is necessary, but there may be other hurdles if we could only understand the language used by the legislative speak, "earmarkise"? From the awards presented above you might ask:
1. How much did my town get in the last 10 years?
2. Compared to all towns, how did the formulation work: equitable per population by town, equitable by net worth, income tax,local property tax weighting, or what??Is there even any index?
3. What is the target per town over 10 years, assuming equitability?
Another series of questions may help justify why the state should pay for some items of dubious value, or, more importantly,those likely to be used only by a favored group. Does everyone play tennis?
Elected legislators use this bonding largess to impress the local electorate of how much care and what they have accomplished on their behalf as measured in dollars.This compassion may also come from the party leadership of the legislature for a job well done in keeping silent as the leadership exercises its agenda without the need for individual legislator contribution: keeping silent has a cost. Comparisons by towns may show an equitable distribution or not, but that is not the point. Each town can see what they get and be thankful to their elected benefactor. We may even put up a sign to memorialize their action.
If earmarks spoke more loudly we may be able to see of the monies awarded to towns:
1. Was any particular bill passed through the purchase of legislative votes by bonded projects?
2. What special interest group benefitted?
3. Can we trace awarded monies to any campaign financing mischief?
4. Are there any contractors favored locally or statewide?
5. What are the long term costs for maintenance, usage, staffing, insurance,..etc for these projects initially funded by the state?
6. How does this project's priority merit funding when the town has other priorities?
7. Has the legislator synched his sponsored project to those of the locally elected official who is closer to the town's real interests?
This potential corruption is silent because nobody really pays, the State does this for free. But, if the earmark had a louder, understandable voice we may find some surprises.The sunshine laws (freedom of information) offer a realistic approach.