CT Is Second-Tier State in Innovation Ranking of States; Earns Top Grades in Investment, Internet

Connecticut is among the second tier of states, described as an “innovation leader,” in the inaugural Innovation Scorecard compiled by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).  The first-of-its-kind innovation performance index is based on ten criteria, and evaluates all 50 states and Washington, D.C., according to the conduciveness of their legal, regulatory and overall business environments to welcome and encourage innovation. The Innovation Scorecard’s first group of Innovation Champions – those states that earned the highest grades – are Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.

Connecticut’s grades range from A- in the “attracts investment” and “fast internet” categories to a C in “tax-friendliness,” D in “innovation friendly sustainable policies,” and F in “right to work.”  The state also received a B in four categories:  entrepreneurial activity, tech workforce, grants STEM degrees and innovation momentum.

The analysis notes that in Connecticut, “the public and private sector are funding incubators including the Connecticut Enterprise Center, Institute of Technology & Business Development and UConn Technology incubation Program to help startups launch their businesses and become financially viable companies.”

The Innovation Scorecard assesses the progress of state policies intended to advance innovation and improve business climates, while also tracking states’ responsiveness to disruptive innovation. Using established economic, educational and legislative data, the report issues grades across ten categories, including: right-to-work laws; policies that support new business models; tax friendliness; Internet speed; and size of the tech workforce.

After the innovation champions group that tops the list, the next category (innovation leader) includes Connecticut and 19 other states, including Vermont and New Hampshire in New England and Washington and Oregon on the West Coast.

Connecticut is one of only five states to receive an A, A- or A+ in the “attracts investment” category.  The others are California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Delaware.  Nine states and Washington, D.C. receive an A, A- or A+ for “fast internet.”  Among them are Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Among the CEA report’s key findings:

• Delaware leads the nation in providing the fastest average Internet speed, at 16,200 kbps;
• The District of Columbia leads the nation in tech jobs per capita;
• Massachusetts and California bring in the most venture capital investment dollars, more than $500 per capita, in the U.S; and
• Massachusetts, California, Washington, Connecticut and Delaware received higher R&D investment than other states.

Plans are for the Innovation Scorecard will be annually updated to reflect states’ evolving policies and any changes in measuring innovation.

Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of CEA, said “The future of growth and economic prosperity in this country is most vibrant in places where policies and political climates serve to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit and can-do attitude that is part of our American DNA. Our hope is that states will use our Scorecard as a measurable guidepost to improve their policies supporting innovation.”

The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), with more than 2,000 member companies, is the technology trade association representing the $286 billion U.S. consumer electronics industry.

Local Election Officials Less Responsive If They Think You’re Latino, Study Finds

The answers vary, depending who is believed to be asking.  In an academic study, researchers have found that individuals thought to be Latino by local election officials receive less responsive and accurate answers to basic questions seeking information about voting.  It is described as the first large-scale field experiment investigating bureaucratic behavior that provides “causal evidence of discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race by election officials.” The authors, Ariel R. White, Noah L. Nathan and Julie K. Faller, Ph.D. candidates at Harvard University, have published the results of their 2012 study, “What Do I Need to Vote? Bureaucratic Discretion and Discrimination by Local Election Officials,” in the February 2015 issues of American Political Science Review.  The graduate students contacted more than 7,000 elections officials in 48 states (Maine and Alaska were not included) – and asked two questions via email of the people who are responsible for both implementing voter-ID laws in many states and providing election-related information to voters.

“We find that officials provide different information to potential voters of different putative ethnicities,” the authors explained.  “Emails sent from Latino aliases are significantly less likely to receive any response from local election officials than non-Latino white aliases and receive responses of lower quality. This raises concerns about the effect of voter ID laws on access to the franchise and about bias in the provision of services by local bureaucrats more generally.”

The field study, in which fundamental voting-related questions were emailed to election officials, was designed to “isolate the effect of ethnicity on real-world performance” of election officials.  It indicates that the officials are less likely to respond to informational inquiries from individuals thought to be Latino.  Emails from Latino names are roughly five percentage points less likely to receive a reply to a question about voter ID requirements than those from non-Latino whites, the Boston Globe reported.

The experiment was designed to determine if “street-level bureaucrats discriminate in the services they provide to constituents.”  The results provide “strong evidence” that they do.  The study concluded that “the responses that Latino emailers received to voter ID questions were less likely to be accurate and were more likely to be non-informative.”  The results “suggest that bias from street-level bureaucrats can occur even when there are not clear strategic reasons for officials to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity.”

The study, just prior to the 2012 election, also indicated that “we find no evidence that whether local officials are elected or appointed, partisan or nonpartisan, or members of specific political parties influences the extent of bias.”

Significantly, given recent court decisions that have rolled back oversight of elections in certain jurisdictions around the country, the study authors indicate that “consistent with the claim that enhanced monitoring reduces discrimination, we find no evidence of bias against Latinos in jurisdictions subject to federal regulation under the Voting Rights Act.”

“These findings have important implications for debates about voter ID laws, and indeed for any changes to voting requirements or election administration,” the authors emphasize in the study’s conclusion.  “Our results indicate that changes to existing voting regulations are likely to differentially increase information costs for Latino voters because public officials are less responsive to their requests for information.”

The 14-page study report also suggests that:

• There is “some evidence that officials respond at lower rates to Latinos, even when asked a question”
• “Public officials can be biased even in exceptionally low cost interactions” such as when only a single word answer (“No”) is necessary
• “If minority voters are less able to acquire information about ID requirements and more likely to be asked for ID at the polls, this could manifest in lower voting rates. This may be greatest where officials are not monitored to prevent discrimination.”

The researchers suggest that future research could “expand the use of experimental methods to examine the presence of bias in service delivery in many other aspects of local administration in the United States” – from” trash collection and snow plowing to the management of welfare offices.”  They raise the question as to whether “similar ethnic or racial biases may affect the quality of services delivered in these other arenas.”

Connecticut's Mechanical Engineers Honored for Driving Innovation, Advancing Technology

A quick glance at the program book for the evening suggested this was not your typical awards ceremony.  The “detailed schedule” in the program featured a level of precision not often seen – the specific time that each speaker would reach the podium was listed… 8:17 Hartford Steam Boiler, 8:23 United Technologies Aerospace Systems, 8:34 Westinghouse Electric, and so on. This was the Awards Banquet of the Hartford Section of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) – a night highlighting Connecticut’s longstanding role as a state of innovation and preeminent engineering expertise, and the people on the front lines – so the exactness was understandable.

A standing-room-only gathering of engineers from some of the region’s largest corporate names, joined by nearly 50 engineering students from area colleges – honored lifelong achievement, recent initiatives to advance new technologies and significant contributions to the field.  The ceremonies were held at the Society Room in Hartford.

Among the corporations presenting awards were Alstom, Belcan Engineering, Firstlight and Power, Hartford Steam Boiler, Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies Aerospace Systems, Westinghouse Electric.  Awards were also given to four veteran engineering faculty members at Central Connecticut State University, University of Hartford and University of Connecticut.

Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (D-5^th District), recalling that her father and grandfather were engineers, said in opening remarks that among the nation’s challenges is a “failure to invest consistently and robustly in research.”  Describing Connecticut as “the home of innovation in engineering,” Esty said that engineers provide “the inspiration to solve the world’s problems.”

The annual event, held days ahead of National Engineers Week, is part of an effort “to raise public awareness of the profession’s positive contributions to improving society and quality of life,” and highlight “the importance of a technical education and a high level of math, science and technology literacy.”

The Hartford Section of ASME, with approximately 800 members, is among the largest in the nation.  Connecticut has two other ASME sections, geographically focused in New Haven and Fairfield County.  The not-for-profit professional organization’s mission, in part, is to “serve diverse global communities by advancing, disseminating and applying engineering knowledge.”  That mission was evident as the work of each award recipient was highlighted.

Amy Ericson, Alstom U.S. Country President, noted that her company has 93,000 employees in 100 countries – and that Windsor, Connecticut is their largest U.S. location.  “We’re very committed to the United States, and to Connecticut,” she said.  The three Alstom honorees – Manager of Performance Design Engineering Danny Gelbar, Head of Global Performance Scott Herman and Consulting Engineer Rahul Terdalkar – recalled Alsom’s predecessors, ABB and Combustion Engineering, well-known names in Connecticut’s heritage.  They also looked ahead to the impact of innovations developed in Connecticut.  Alstom equipment can be found in one of every two U.S. power plants, 40 percent of all power grids and the nation’s busiest rail transportation systems.

Among the faculty award recipients was Dr. Alfred A. Gates, Professor of Engineering at Central Connecticut State University, whose two decades at the university have been a steady stream of technical innovation and teaching.  Gates noted that CCSU has just become the first university in the United States to receive a Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the Federal Aviation Administration  to “fly unmanned aircraft in the wire zone,” within feet of electric lines.  The FAA has closely regulated such authorizations to assure public safety, conducting a comprehensive operational and technical review on each application.  Approval, after a nearly year-long review, reflects Gates record of skill and accomplishment in engineering and testing such devices.

The University of Hartford’s Leo T. Smith, a member of the engineering faculty since 1978, and UConn School of Engineering professor Nejat Olgac, a faculty member since 1981, were also honored.  Each program highlighted its recent growth, with CCSU’s program increasing to 300 students in just under a decade.

State Rep. Lonnie Reed (D-Branford), co-chair of the state legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee, saluted the “sense of buoyancy and possibility” that engineers embody, and the “solution-oriented optimism” that they bring to technical challenges.  She recalled her years as a television news reporter and the inspiring excitement of covering NASA space shuttle missions and the “failure is not an option” approach that permeated the space program, noting Connecticut’s significant contributions to those initiatives.

Honorees included Shaila Kambli, Chief Engineer, Systems and Software Engineering, at Belcan; Peter A. Goodell, Supervisor Code Services at HSB Global Standards; Tadry Domagala, Chief Project Engineer at UTC Aerospace Systems; Edward Hathaway, Senior Engineer at First Light; and Michael Foster of Westinghouse.  The Pratt & Whitney award recipients were Jesse Boyer, Fellow, Additive Manufacturing; Christopher L. Dyer, Deputy Director, Cold Section Engineering; Matthew R. Feulner, Discipline Manager of Operability, Propulsion Systems Analysis; David P. Houston, Manager of Cor Structures, Mechanical Disciplines; Katherine A. Knapp Carney, CIPT Leader, Next Generation Product Family Programs; John P. Virtue, Jr., Discipline Chief for Aero Thermal Fluids, Compressor Heat Transfer; and Ryan Walsh, Validation Manager, PW1100G-JM Engine Program.  It was the 29th annual awards ceremony; the Engineer's Night chairman and emcee was Aaron Danenberg of Belcan Engineering.

http://youtu.be/iPmdZJhVUfk

More US Cities Seek to Join Stamford in Commitment to Energy, Water Usage Reductions in Commercial Buildings

Efforts are underway this year for seven additional cities, from Albuquerque to Ann Arbor, to follow Stamford and seven others across the nation, in making a long-term commitment to reduce energy and water consumption in commercial buildings and reduce emissions from transportation, while increasing competitiveness in the business environment and owners' returns on investment. The “2030 District” initiative began with Seattle in 2011, grew by two cities in 2012, to four in 2013, and then to eight in 2014 when Stamford joined Seattle, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Denver, Dallas, and San Francisco as a 2030 District.  Now working towards the designation, in addition to Albuquerque and Ann Arbor, are Detroit, San Antonio, Ithaca, Toronto and Portland.

Across the United States and Canada, 2030 Districts are forming with greater frequency to meet incremental energy, water and vehicle emissions reduction targets for existing buildings and new construction called for by Architecture 2030 in the 2030 Challenge for Planning.  Districts are generally private/public partnerships that commit to dramatic reductions in water consumption and energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as adaptation and resiliency actions that address projected climatic impacts.

The Stamford 2030 District – launched this past  November - is an interdisciplinary public-private-nonprofit collaborative working to create a groundbreaking high performance building district in downtown Stamford.  Leading the way in the Stamford 2030 District are the Business Council of Fairfield County and Connecticut Fund for the Environment. As Stamford is a coastal city, its 2030 District will also implement a proactive vision to ensure resiliency against projected sea-level rise and storm surge.

The Stamford 2030 District – the first in New England - began with 23 founding members, including 11 property owners and 12 prominent professional and community stakeholders committed to meeting the 2030 Districts goals and targets. High performance buildings have proven track records of simultaneously increasing business and property profitability, reducing environmental impacts, and improving occupant health.

Now in the process of assessing the District’s current building performance levels, one-on-one assistance is provided to property owners and managers in benchmarking their buildings.  In addition, a first-time webinar will be held this week, on Wednesday, February 18, with several founding members highlighting best practices and procedures:

• Jay Black of SL Green Realty/Reckson Properties will offer industry perspective through his experience with benchmarking buildings in both NY and CT.
• WegoWise will present an overview of their web-based software that is able to benchmark a portfolio and provide deeper analytics into a buildings’ energy performance to find savings opportunities.
• Steven Winter and Associates will demonstrate how to take benchmarking a step further with tools such as building energy audits to help identify opportunities within the building.
• New Neighborhoods, Inc. will serve as a case study project in Stamford that has contracted with WegoWise for their benchmarking and will share their experience.

Officials indicate that District Members develop realistic, measurable, and innovative strategies to assist district property owners, managers, and tenants in meeting aggressive goals that keep properties and businesses competitive while operating buildings more efficiently, reducing costs, and reducing the environmental impacts of facility construction, operation, and maintenance.

“These collective efforts will establish the Stamford 2030 District as an example of a financially viable, sustainability focused, multi-sector driven effort that maximizes profitability and prosperity for all involved. Through collaboration of diverse stakeholders, leveraging existing and developing new incentives and financing mechanisms, and creating and sharing joint resources, the Stamford 2030 District will prove the business case for healthy and high performing buildings.”

Property owners and managers are voluntarily committing their properties to Stamford 2030 District goals; they are not required to achieve the District goals through legislative mandates or as individuals.

“Stamford is already a business leader in Connecticut. The Stamford 2030 District will make the city a sustainability leader nationwide,” said Megan Saunders, Executive Director of the Stamford 2030 District. With over 170 million square feet of commercial building space (including 6 million thus far in Stamford), 2030 Districts are rapidly emerging as a new model for urban sustainability, officials indicate.

The Stamford 2030 District provides members a roadmap and the support they need to own, manage, and develop high performance buildings by leveraging Community and Professional Stakeholders, market resources, and by creating new tools, partnerships, and opportunities to overcome current market barriers. This type of collaborative action is not only a strategic undertaking to keep Stamford competitive in the year 2030, but also represents a major investment in Stamford's future and reflects the collaborative nature of our region.

School Suspensions Down, But Students of Color, Low Income Receive Disproportionate Share

There’s good news and bad news in a new analysis of suspensions, expulsions, and arrests of students in Connecticut schools.  The report, by Connecticut Voices for Children, found that overall significantly fewer students have been excluded from the classroom in recent years, but that suspension, expulsion and arrest rates were much higher for minority students, special education students, and students from poorer districts. The report also found that “many of these discipline measures were used for behaviors that were probably not criminal and could likely have been handled within the school.”  Stressing that “children learn best when they are in school,” the report indicated that “arrests, expulsions, and suspensions are often costly, ineffective, and unnecessary.”

Connecticut Voices for Children is a research and advocacy organization that works to improve opportunities for the state’s children, youth and families. The report, “Keeping Kids in Class: School Discipline in Connecticut, 2008-2013,” uses data provided by local school districts, found that in 2013, 7.4 percent of all students received at least one expulsion or suspension, down from 8.5 percent as recently as 2011.

First, the good news:

• The number of students arrested, expelled, and suspended in Connecticut has decreased significantly in recent years. In the 2013 school year, Connecticut schools arrested 35 percent fewer students, expelled 31 percent fewer students, and gave out of school suspensions to 47 percent fewer students than in 2008.

The not-so-good news:

• Despite the overall reduction in these “exclusionary” school discipline practices, many students are still removed from the classroom for non-criminal behaviors that could, in the view of Connecticut Voices, be managed in the classroom. “School policy violations” – such as skipping class, insubordination, or using profanity – were involved in 9 percent of student arrests, 6 percent of expulsions, 50 percent of out-of-school suspensions, and 79 percent of in-school suspensions in 2013.

From 2008-2013 the percentage of students suspended out-of-school fell from 4.9% to 2.7%. During the same time period, the percentage of students suspended in-school increased from 4.9% to 5.2%.

Of particular concern was the data related to students of color and those with limited financial resources or disability:

• In 2013, black students were 4.7 times more likely to be arrested, 4.9 times more likely to be expelled, and 6.5 times more likely to be suspended out-of-school than white students.
• Hispanic students were 3.1 times more likely to be arrested, 2.6 times more likely to be expelled, and 4.4 times more likely to be suspended out-of-school than white students.
• Special education students were arrested at 3 times the rate of general education students, and they were 1.8 times more likely to be expelled, and 2.6 times more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions.
• Students in the poorest urban areas were arrested nearly 23 times more often, expelled over 17 times more often, and suspended out-of-school 24 times more often than students in the wealthiest suburban areas.

Based on the data, the report makes a series of recommendations for the state Department of Education and policymakers to consider, including:

• Require districts with police stationed in schools to create a memorandum of agreement between the schools and police that sets ground rules concerning arrests. Promote police and educator training, such as that provided by the state’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, which offers instruction to officers and educators in understanding and responding productively to adolescent behavior.
• Implement preventive strategies and alternative discipline measures to reduce racial and other disparities and ensure those excluded from school are provided equal opportunities.
• Establish and support community collaborations across the state. National studies show that engaging all stakeholders in the discipline process positively impacts student behavior and achievement.

The top 10 reasons for expulsion in 2013:  1) drug/alcohol/tobacco, 2) weapons, 3) fighting/battery, 4) personally threatening behavior, 5) school policy violations, 6) theft/theft related behaviors, 7) verbal confrontation/conduct unbecoming 8) violent crimes against persons, 9) sexually related behavior, and 10) property damage.

The report concludes that “the disproportionate rate by which students of color and students from poorer districts are excluded from school may in fact contribute to widening the achievement gap; students from less privileged backgrounds will continue to perform worse than their more advantaged peers if they are excluded from the classroom in the first place.”

The report also recommends expanding access to behavioral and mental health services and utilize Juvenile Review Boards (JRBs), locally-run groups that offer a diversionary alternative to the court system for youth who have committed minor delinquent acts or misdemeanors.  In addition, it calls for improving data collection by clearly defining “student arrests” (not currently defined by the state) and collecting and publishing data on all student arrests (currently not required for all incidents resulting in arrests).

“This report tells us that many schools in Connecticut have reformed their disciplinary practices and reduced student arrests, expulsions and out-of-school suspensions,” said Ellen Shemitz, Executive Director of Connecticut Voices for Children. “Yet these reforms have not benefited all children equally. How can we hope to reduce the yawning achievement gap when school disciplinary practices push minority children out of school at disproportionate rates?”

West Hartford, North Haven Hearing Opposition to Native American Nicknames for School Athletics

West Hartford is the latest community to consider whether the time has come to change the name of its high school sports teams, in order to drop longstanding names that may be insensitive to Native American culture.  The town, which has two high schools – one nicknamed the Warriors, the other ncalled the Chieftans – will hold a public forum to discuss the mascots on Thursday, Feb. 12. Last month in North Haven, controversy erupted regarding the Indians name for its high school teams, with competing petitions urging a name change and retention of the name surfacing online.  The change.org petition urging a change has 728 signatures to date, with the goal of “formally get the attention of the North Haven Board of Education, allow for some serious discussion on this issue.”  The petition advocating continuing tradition and retention of “Indians” has amassed 2,067 signatures on-line.

The issue has come up sporadically around the state for more than a decade, and has intensified in West Hartford, North Haven and across the state as part of a wider national conversation about whether Native American symbols and mascots are inherently racist and therefore inappropriate.

West Hartford’s Hall High School has dropped the use of an American Indian head as its logo, though the warrior remains the school mascot, the Hartford Courant has reported. Conard's mascot is the chieftain, and although sports teams have gradually phased out use of the American Indian head logo, the image still exists elsewhere, such as the masthead of the student newspaper, "The PowWow." The student-led pep club at Hall is also named "The Reservation," and Conard's pep club is "The Tribe."  The website we-ha.com has reported that Conard students, teachers, coaches, and alumni have elicited the opinion of the Mohegan tribal leadership regarding the West Hartford high school’s mascot and name, and the name was discussed by students last December as part of a Human Rights Day program.

Derby High Schools’ teams continue to be known as the “Red Raiders,” using an arrowhead logo, and Killingly High School's teams are known as the Redmen.  In Torrington, the schools’ website refer to their teams as “Raiders” – not “Red Raiders.”   Promoting their 2014 Thanksgiving Day football rivalry, the Torrington website said “Come out to see the Raiders take on the Watertown Indians in the 49th renewal of this holiday classic. The Raiders have held off the Indian attack the past two seasons…”

Norwich Technical High School, continues to use the nickname Warriors for its baseball, track, tennis, volleyball and most other school teams.  In some instances, Norwich Tech has combined teams with other local high schools, resulting in students playing on the Crusaders (football) or Saints (wrestling).

Just six months ago, the New Haven Register reported that “at least 23 high school teams in the state have names associated with Native Americans that could be considered offensive.

Northwest Catholic High School in West Hartford told WFSB-TV last spring that the school’s teams no longer officially use the name “Indians,” but as of this week, the schools website continued to feature its parent booster club as the “Tomahawk Club.” At Glastonbury High School, the athletics teams are called the “Tomahawks.”

The Guilford Public Schools Student-Athlete and Parent Handbook for 2013-2014 includes the following explanation at the front of the book:  “Guilford High School is proud of its heritage and its friendly relations with the Native Americans that inhabited the land we now call Guilford. To demonstrate this pride, Guilford High School began to use Indian names and symbols for its yearbooks and athletic teams during the l940's. We believe it is our obligation as an educational institution to inform our public about the history of our community and the role the Native American played. The use of the Indian symbol is meant to serve as a reminder of our past and should be held in the highest regard at all times.”

The unofficial list of high school team nicknames that are receiving attention regarding their athletic team nicknames or mascots, in addition to those described above:

Canton High School (Warriors), Enfield High School (Raiders), Farmington High School (Indians), Guilford High School (Indians),  H.C. Wilcox Technical (Meriden) High School (Indians),Killingly High School (Redmen), Manchester High School (Indians), Montville High School (Indians), and Newington High School (Indians).  Also, the Nonnewaug (Woodbury) High School (Chiefs), North Haven Senior High School (Indians),  RHAM Junior Senior High School (Sachems), Valley Regional (Deep River) High School (Warriors), Wamogo (Litchfield) Regional High School (Warriors), Watertown High School (Indians), Wilcox Technical (Meriden) High School (Indians), Wilton High School (Warriors), Windsor High School (Warriors), Windsor Locks High School (Raiders).

Northern New England States Anticipate Higher Lyme Disease Levels for 2014

Officials in Northern New England are anticipating record or near-record levels of Lyme Disease in their states during 2014 when the final numbers are tallied. Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Director Sheila Pinette recently told the Associated Press that when the 2014 stats are in, the state is likely to exceed the record high of 1,384 cases of the illness in 2013.  Vermont officials say their state is on track for its second- or third-highest total on record in 2014, following the 2013 high of 671, and New Hampshire officials say the numbers there are in line with recent years, which included a record-high in 2013.  Official data will be released in the coming months.

Connecticut’s 2014 stats are due in March, and officials did not comment on what they are anticipating.  In 2013, Connecticut had 2,108 confirmed cases, according to the Department of Public Health, and a total of 2,918 confirmed or probable cases of Lyme disease were reported.   The largest number were in Fairfield County, New London County and New Haven County.

It is unclear whether better reporting methods or environmental factors – or both – are behind the apparent growing numbers in New England. Symptoms can include fatigue, fever, skin rashes, and a headache. Left untreated, it can lead to arthritis, facial palsy, and problems with the nervous system.  

Last summer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that an estimated 300,000 Americans get the tick-borne disease every year, PBS reported. The number of cases has been increasing.

Most instances of Lyme Disease are concentrated in the Northeast, with 95 percent of them in 14 states, including Connecticut, along with Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

In 2013, it was the 5th most common Nationally Notifiable disease, according to the CDC. Last year, the Pennsylvania legislature established a task force that will operate within the Pennsylvania Department of Health to help the department develop better surveillance, educate the public about Lyme disease, and advise health care professionals.

The 2,918 cases in Connecticut in 2013 reflected an increase from 2,660 in 2012, but a drop from 3,041 cases in 2011 and 3,068 in 2010.

Plans Unfold for National Museum Store Conference in Hartford in April

If you’ve ever made a purchase at a museum store and wondered about how the merchandise was selected or the store operates, there will be no shortage of experts from the industry in Hartford this spring.  The 60th Annual Museum Store Association Retail Conference & Expo will be held April 17-20, 2015 at the Connecticut Convention Center. The event is the only conference and expo specifically created for retailers at museums, historic sites, botanic gardens, aquariums, zoos, libraries and more. The 2015 MSA Retail Conference & Expo is designed to help nonprofit retail professionals by providing four days of education sessions featuring industry experts and opportunities to connect with vendors who offer products matched with the museum store industry.

It will be the first time the national conference will be in Hartford.  In recent years the host cities were Houston, Los Angeles, New Orleans and Chicago.  The national meeting in Hartford will include a “retail boot camp” and a tour of the Mark Twain House and Harriet Beecher Stowe House.

The MSA website points out that “learning sessions are presented by the leading thinkers in nonprofit retailing who share the knowledge you need to run your store, meet the needs of management, make the most out of challenges, be a leader and through retailing contribute to your institution’s brand and extend the experience of your visitors.”

Manager of the Museum Shop at the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, immediate past MSA Board President Stacey Stachow, said when Hartford was selected to host the conference, “Connecticut has so much to offer with its rich cultural history, so many museums and things to do that relate to our members.”   In addition to the Wadsworth Atheneum, other MSA member institutions in the area include the Connecticut Historical Society Museum & Library, Harriet Beecher Stowe House, New Britain Museum of American Art and Friends of Dinosaur State Park and Arboretum.

The opening keynote speaker will be Roderick Buchanan, director of buying and retail at the British Museum Company.  The closing keynote speaker will be Dick Durrance, an award-winning National Geographic photographer and U.S. Army combat photographer during the Vietnam War. 

Among the industry issues that will be discussed is fair trade, which will be the focus of a panel discussion.  The conference website points out that “as consumers are increasingly interested in the origin of the goods they purchase, the fair trade movement is gaining momentum and is affecting buying in the museum store world. Expert panelists will offer insights into critical aspects of the fair trade industry, including who benefits from fair trade, why retailers should buy fair trade, and questions that should be asked about business practices in order to ensure that products are indeed fair trade.”

Other sessions include presentations on pop-up shops, museum store launches, visual merchandizing, ecommerce, the influence of various cultures, and the importance of museum stores in the overall experience of museum visitors.

The four-day event is expected to bring in 900 participants downtown utilizing an estimated 1,130 room nights, according to organizers. There will be 21 educational sessions, and more than 200 vendors on hand.  Approximately 800 institutions are part of MSA with more than 1200 individual members representing those institutions.

Stores in cultural institutions are different from typical retail operations in several ways, the organization points out. “These retail operations play a vital role in supporting the institution’s educational mission. They offer products that provide visitors with mementos and educational materials directly related to their cultural experience.’  Purchases made at museum stores provide important financial support for the institution, officials emphasize.

FCC “Enforcement Hold” of WTIC-AM License Renewal Continues in New Year

The license renewal application of WTIC-AM, filed more than a year ago, remains on “enforcement hold” at the Federal Communications Commission, as the agency’s Enforcement Bureau continues to consider “an alleged violation of FCC rules,” according to an FCC official. Until the enforcement hold is lifted, the agency’s Media Bureau cannot proceed with a decision on whether or not to renew the station’s broadcast license.  The Enforcement Bureau must first determine whether or not a violation of FCC rules has occurred.  If the allegation is substantiated, the agency has a range of options, such as warning that the violation not be repeated or imposing a monetary fine on the station, officials said. 

WTIC-AM, which is licensed to Hartford but operates from studios in Farmington, can continue broadcasting under the broadcast license that expired nine months ago, on April 1, 2014, until the FCC acts on its renewal application.  The renewal application was filed by the station more than a year ago, on November 27, 2013. Stations must file an application for license renewal) four months prior to the expiration date of the station's license.

Precisely what the allegation under review involves is not made known to the public, officials reiterated this week.  That information is only made available to the licensee or their attorney, according to an FCC official. The agency can, and often does, communicate with the station as part of their review process.  WTIC has declined to comment on the ongoing review process at the FCC.

Officials say it is not unusual for a license renewal to be on enforcement hold for an extended period of time.  Stations in such a status routinely continue to operate without any interruption until a decision on license renewal is made.

When the license renewal application does reach the agency’s Media Bureau, they will consider “how the allegation of violation was resolved,” as well as a range of other factors in deciding whether or not to renew the station’s license.

The other, more routine, factors include whether any other objections have been raised about the station, whether the station has been adequately serving the public in their area of license, their history of compliance with FCC regulations, and their overall performance.  License renewals for radio stations are issued by the FCC for a period of eight years.

Connecticut by the Numbers first reported the FCC’s enforcement hold last September.  Subsequently, Hartford Attorney Ken Krayeske filed an informal objection on October 1, 2014 to WTIC’s broadcast license renewal, alleging that the station “demonstrated serious malfeasance” and “helped conceal violations of federal law,” related to Rowland’s use of his radio program to promote the Congressional campaign of Lisa Wilson-Foley. Krayeske had filed a previous complaint in 2012 that did not result in FCC action against the station.

Connecticut Ranks 33rd in College Funding, Tuition, Burden; Grade: D

The Student Impact Project, an initiative of the youth advocacy group Young Invincibles, tracked trends in higher education finance in states across the country, and graded each state based on tuition levels, state funding per student, state aid to students, the financial burden to families and higher education spending as a portion of the total state budget.  Connecticut's report card grade:  D. In state-by-state reports published this week and reported by US News & World Report, the group found that on average, tuition at four-year public colleges and universities increased 37 percent between 2007 and 2013, which is three times the rate of inflation.  The data indicated that 47 states spend less per student today than they did before the Great Recession.

Connecticut ranks 33rd among the nation’s 50 states in support for higher education.  Overall, just four states – Wyoming, New York, Alaska and Oklahoma – received a total grade equivalent to an A, while 10 got a B, 13 got a C, 12 got a D and 11 received an F, US News reported.

Overall, the state’s average in the five categories was 63 percent, which placed it ahead of only 16 states, including New Hampshire, which placed last, and Vermont, Colorado, Michigan and Oregon.  Connecticut received an F in the “aid for students” category, D in “state appropriation average” and “tuition” categories, C- in “Higher Ed as a Priority,” and the state's highest grade, C+, in “Burden on Families Average.”

New Hampshire, which at a 17 percent overall grade scored lowest in the country, spends the least amount of money per student than any other state ($1,708), and has cut the budget almost in half since the recession, according to the report. New Hampshire also provides no state aid to students, and spends 2 percent of its overall budget on higher education.  In Connecticut, the report indicated, that figure is 11 percent.

A report issued last month by the General Accounting Office in Washington, D.C. for the U.S. Senate found “persistent state budget constraints have limited funding for public colleges” across the country. The result, according to the GAO report: “Students and their families are now bearing the cost of college as a larger portion of their total family budgets.”

A report by Connecticut’s Office of Higher Education in March 2014 found that for the 2013-14 academic year, “UConn’s increase of 5.8 percent for in-state commuting students compares to a national average of 3.7 percent for state flagship institutions. CSCU’s increase of 5.4 percent for in-state commuting students attending its State Universities compares to a national average of 4.1 percent for similar types of institutions; the Community Colleges’ increase of 5.5 percent for in-state commuting students compares to a national average of 4.5 percent for like institutions.”

The Connecticut report also noted that “from 2009 to 2014, tuition and fees for in-state undergraduates have increased 24.7 percent at the Connecticut State Universities, 26.9 percent at the Community Colleges, and 28.7 percent at UConn.”  Last fall, Connecticut’s largest public college system (CSCU) said it will need an 11 percent increase in its base-level state funding for the next fiscal year if they are to keep  an anticipated tuition-and-fee hike to 2 percent.  If additional state funding is not provided, steeper tuition hikes are possible.

From fiscal years 2003 through 2012, the GAO report outlined, state funding for all public colleges decreased, while tuition rose. Specifically, state funding decreased by 12 percent overall while median tuition rose 55 percent across all public colleges. Tuition revenue for public colleges increased from 17 percent to 25 percent, surpassing state funding by fiscal year 2012 (see chart below).

In their report, “State Funding Trends and Policies on Affordability,” GAO identified several potential approaches that the federal government could use to expand incentives to states to improve affordability, such as creating new grants, providing more consumer information on affordability, or changing federal student aid programs. “Each of these approaches may have advantages and challenges, including cost implications for the federal government and consequences for students,” the report noted.

The report also indicates that “state grant aid directly affects students in that it can reduce their out-of-pocket expenses for college… state grant aid, both merit- and need-based, has positive effects on enrollment.”  The results of one program, in Washington State, cited by GAO “suggests that receiving the aid increased a student’s probability of enrolling in college by nearly 14 to 19 percentage points.”

Footnote to the story: to underscore the data, US News is running a video news story broadcast on FOX Connecticut, reporting on possible tuition increases at the Connecticut State Colleges & Universities.  The story, which is not referenced by date, was aired two years ago.