PERSPECTIVE: Lawsuits, Libel Laws and the Imperative to Protect Journalists

by Michelle Xiong On August 4, 1735, a lawyer stood in a crowded New York courthouse and proclaimed, “The question before you, gentlemen of the jury, is not of small or private concern. It is not the cause of one poor printer … It is the cause of liberty … the liberty both of exposing and opposing arbitrary power by speaking and writing the truth.” (Williams).

The man was Andrew Hamilton and he was defending John Peter Zenger from charges of seditious libel against the royal governor (Williams). The case would become a milestone in the development of the freedom of the press in America when the jury strayed from English common law and acquitted Zenger (Williams).

Over 200 years after the famous Zenger trial, Donald Trump’s campaign promise to “open up” libel laws is a selfish idea that would only open the doors again to the abuse of power. The press occupies a critical role in a democratic society. Current libel laws and interpretations of the First Amendment are designed to ensure government institutions and public officials can be held accountable.

Libel laws in the United States provide significant protection for the press because of the First Amendment. Distinct from European practices, “truth is an absolute defense against defamation” in the United States (“Substantial Truth”). This was formally enacted through legislation at the state and federal level after judges deadlocked over the issue in People v. Croswell (McGrath).

New York Times v. Sullivan was the landmark case that made it especially difficult for public officials to sue for damages (“New York Times Co. v. Sullivan”). The Supreme Court’s ruling established the need for actual malice which means the defendant published material with the “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” (“New York Times Co. v. Sullivan”).

While this standard may seem unfair to public officials, the high burden of proof required is fundamental to preventing the abuse of governmental power. Without strict libel laws, public officials can use lawsuits to suppress content that is critical of their behavior. Such was the case during the Civil Rights movement when southern state officials attacked news organizations that published unfavorable reports by bringing almost $300 million in libel actions against them (Schmitt).

What Donald Trump considers a ¨hit piece” may just be investigative reporting that dispute his actions and policies. Trump has a history of filing libel suits with 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years (Seager). Opening libel laws will allow Trump and other public officials the dangerous opportunity to intimidate political opposition and reduce government transparency.

Fortunately, Donald Trump’s threat to “open up” libel laws is easier said than done. Because libel laws are determined by individual states, Trump as president does not have the authority to alter libel laws directly (Ember). Trump would need to impose new limits on the First Amendment through an overturn of New York Times v. Sullivan by the Supreme Court or an amendment of the Constitution. According to Sandra S. Baron, former executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, both processes would be difficult and unlikely to happen successfully (Ember).

In the modern era of the Internet, the way people communicate and receive news is changing rapidly. However, concerns over “fake news” online should not detract from the fact that legitimate journalism must remain protected. To ensure that the government remains answerable to the people, prevailing libel laws should be preserved.

_______________________________

Michelle Xiong is in her junior year at Greenwich High School.  This essay was written for the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government annual essay contest for high school students, were it was selected to receive First Place recognition.

Ember, Sydney. “Can Libel Laws Be Changed Under Trump?” The New York Times, 13 Nov. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/business/media/can-libel-laws-be-changed-under-trump.html. Accessed 31 Mar. 2017.

McGrath, Paul. “People v. Croswell Andrew Hamilton and the Transformation of the Common Law of Libel.” The Historical Society of the New York Courts, 2011, www.nycourts.gov/history/programs-events/images/Judicial-Notice-07.pdf#page=6. Accessed 31 Mar. 2017.

“New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.” Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254. Accessed 31 Mar. 2017.

Schmitt, Rick. “Window to the Past: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.” District of Columbia Bar, Oct. 2014, www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2014-nyt-sullivan.cfm. Accessed 31 Mar. 2017.

Seager, Susan E. “Donald J. Trump Is a Libel Bully But Also a Libel Loser.” Media Law Resource Center, www.medialaw.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3470. Accessed 31 Mar. 2017.

“Substantial Truth.” Digital Media Law Project, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth. Accessed 31 Mar. 2017.

Williams, James A. “The Trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735.” Founders and Patriots of America, 1993, www.founderspatriots.org/articles/trial_zenger.php. Accessed 31 Mar. 2017.

New Ventures Impress, Receive Funds to Advance Entrepreneurial Efforts

reSET, the Social Enterprise Trust (www.reSETCo.org), whose mission is advancing the social enterprise sector and supporting entrepreneurs of all stripes, revealed the winners of its 2017 Venture Showcase last night at The Mark Twain House and Museum to a sellout crowd of 200. The annual event recognizes the talented entrepreneurs and innovative businesses that have just graduated from reSET’s nationally recognized accelerator. 17 early stage enterprises graduated from the recent cohort, and last night, seven finalists competed for $30,000 in unrestricted funding.

The entrepreneurs pitched their business models to an audience of founders, investors, and community and corporate stakeholders. An esteemed panel of judges, including Tony Vengrove of Miles Finch Innovation, Michael Nicastro of Continuity, and Lalitha Shivaswamy of Helios Management Corporation, selected the ultimate winners.

Recipients of the competition’s three “reSET Impact Awards” are listed below, as is the winner of the “Tech Impact Award,” which was given by reSET’s Founding Partner and the evening’s Presenting Platinum Sponsor The Walker Group.

reSET Impact Awards:

$10,000 - Career Path  http://www.careerpathmobile.com

$6,000- Pelletric  http://www.pelletric.com

$4,000 - Phood  http://phoodsolutions.com

The Walker Group’s Tech Impact Award:

$10,000 - Phood http://phoodsolutions.com

Other finalists included:  Almasuite http://www.almasuite.com, Eureeka BI http://www.eureekabi.com, Optima Sports System http://optimasports.es,

and Sweetflexx http://sweetflexx.com/en.

The Showcase’s prize purse was made possible by a handful of reSET’s community partners: The Walker Group (Presenting Platinum Sponsor), The Hartford (Platinum Sponsor), Eversource (Gold Sponsor), AT&T (Gold Sponsor), Accounting Resources, Inc. (Silver Sponsor), Qualidigm (Silver Sponsor), CT by the Numbers (Silver Sponsor), and Aeton Law Partners (Silver Sponsor). The David Alan Hospitality Group and Capture provided in-kind services.

CareerPath is a platform that enables career planning teams to "effectively connect and communicate with students." Using a series of milestones, tasks, and events as drivers, CareerPath allows students to "tackle their career planning objectives in an organized and manageable way."

reSET also receives generous support from its Strategic Partners: The Walker Group, Connecticut Innovations, MetroHartford Alliance, and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development.  reSET, the Social Enterprise Trust is a non-profit organization whose mission is to advance the social enterprise sector. Its strategic goals are threefold: to be the “go-to” place for impact entrepreneurs, to make Hartford the Impact City, and Connecticut the social enterprise state.  Since its inception, reSET has awarded more than a quarter of a million dollars to scaling ventures. Graduates of the organization’s accelerator have generated $4.4 million in revenue and have taken on $5.5 million in investment.

https://youtu.be/EAC6W3Dn_k8

PERSPECTIVE: Recycled Rubber Playing Surfaces Should be Prohibited Until Proven Safe

by Robert Wright and Sarah Evans Given the hazards associated with recycled tire rubber, these products should never be used as surfaces where children play.  We should all be concerned that there are significant gaps in the evidence supporting the safety of recycled rubber turf products. We raise concerns as pediatricians, epidemiologists, and laboratory scientists at the Children’s Environmental Health Center of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, which hosts one of 10 nationally funded Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to harmful exposures from recycled rubber surfaces.  Public playgrounds are typically utilized by children age 6 months to 12 years, a population exquisitely vulnerable to the health effects of toxic environmental exposures. This vulnerability is due to a number of factors including, but not limited to, their unique physiology and behaviors, rapidly developing organ systems, and immature detoxification mechanisms[1]. Additionally, because of their young age, children have more future years of life and therefore more time to develop chronic diseases.

Concerns about the safety of recycled rubber playing surfaces have been raised by the federal government, based on the lack of comprehensive studies.

On February 12, 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced the launch of an investigation into the safety of crumb rubber in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, stating “existing studies do not comprehensively evaluate the concerns about health risks from exposure to tire crumb”[2].  

In December of 2016, USEPA published a status report describing the activities to date related to this investigation[3]. Although research findings are not yet available, the report describes the completed review of the scientific literature related to recycled rubber playing surfaces, noting that data gaps were more pronounced for playground surfaces than for athletic fields. Of 88 reviewed studies, only 8 were related to playground surfaces.

According to the report, the limited scientific literature concludes that “additional studies are needed to support the safety of recycled tire rubber in playground surfaces”.  Importantly, no studies have addressed children’s exposure to chemicals from recycled rubber playground surfaces via oral, inhalational, and dermal routes. To address identified gaps, CPSC plans to conduct field observation studies, focus groups, a national survey of caregivers, and exposure modeling based on recycled rubber composition and bioavailability data currently being collected by USEPA and ATSDR.

Until the findings of these studies are available and conclusively demonstrate the safety of recycled rubber playground surfaces, we recommend a ban on the use of these materials where children play. We have identified several potential dangers that playing on recycled rubber playing surfaces pose to children, including:

1. Extreme heat. On hot summer days, temperatures of over 160 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded on recycled rubber play surfaces[4]. Vigorous play in these conditions conveys a very real risk of burns, dehydration, heat stress, or heat stroke. Children are less able to regulate their body temperature than adults, making them particularly susceptible to conditions of extreme heat[5]. In addition, children have a higher surface area to body mass ratio, produce more body heat per unit mass, and sweat less than adults, all factors that increase susceptibility to heat injury[6].
2. Inhalation and ingestion of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Children are particularly vulnerable to chemical exposures from playground surfaces due to their developmentally appropriate hand to mouth behaviors. In addition, their close proximity to the ground and higher respiratory rates compared with adults increase the likelihood of inhalational exposures.  Thus, there is a potential for toxins to be inhaled, absorbed through the skin and even swallowed by children who play on recycled rubber surfaces.  The major chemical components of recycled rubber are styrene and butadiene, the principal ingredients of the synthetic rubber used for tires in the United States[7]. Styrene is neurotoxic and reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen[8].  Butadiene is a proven human carcinogen that has been shown to cause leukemia and lymphoma[9].  Shredded and crumb rubber also contain lead, cadmium, and other metals known to damage the developing nervous system[10]^,[11]. Some of these metals are included in tires during manufacture, and others picked up by tires as they roll down the nation’s streets and highways. It is important to note that risk of harm due to exposures from recycled rubber turf has been assessed only for single chemicals, yet children are exposed to numerous harmful chemicals in aggregate during play on these surfaces.

3. Transportation home of rubber pellets. Recycled rubber materials used in play surfaces break down into smaller pieces over time that may be picked up on children’s shoes, clothing and skin. The rubber is then tracked into children’s homes and cars, and carried into the places where children live, play, eat and sleep. Thus exposure can continue for many hours beyond the time that a child spends in the play area.
4. Escape of chemical hazards from rubber surfaces to the environment. A number of the toxic and chemical components of the recycled rubber that is installed on playgrounds are soluble in water. When rain and snow fall on synthetic fields, these materials can leach from the surface to contaminate ground water and soil[12]. In addition, chemicals in turf can be released into the air and inhaled, particularly on hot days.

Safe alternatives to recycled rubber playground surfaces exist.  Daily outdoor play and physical activity are essential components of a healthy childhood.  Thus safe play areas are critical to any school environment.  Our priority should be ensuring that the health risks do not outweigh the rewards.

__________________________________

Robert Wright, MD, MPH is Director, and Sarah Evans, PhD, MPH, is a faculty member of the Children’s Environmental Health Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York City.  This article is based on testimony provided to the Connecticut General Assembly’s Committee on Children during the current legislative session regarding HB 6998, An Act Concerning the Use of Recycled Tire Rubber at Municipal and Public School Playgrounds. Artificial Turf: A Health-­Based Consumer Guide was published this month. 

[1] Bearer, CF. Neurotoxicology 21:925-934, 2000.

[2] http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/us_federal_research_action_plan_tirecrumb_final_0.pdf

[3] https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/december-2016-status-report-federal-research-action-plan-recycled-tire-crumb

[4] Devitt, D.A., M.H. Young, M. Baghzouz, and B.M. Bird. 2007. Surface temperature, heat loading and spectral reflectance of artificial turfgrass. Journal of Turfgrass and Sports Surface Science 83:68-82

[5] https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/Children-and-Disasters/Pages/Extreme-Temperatures-Heat-and-Cold.aspx

[6] Falk B, Dotan R. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008 Apr;33(2):420-7. doi: 10.1139/H07-185.

[7] Denly et al A Review of the Potential Health and Safety Risks from Synthetic Turf Fields Containing Crumb Rubber Infill. May 2008.  http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/turf_report_05-08.pdf

[8] ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Styrene, November 2010. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp53.pdf.

[9] International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2008. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100F/mono100F-26.pdf

[10] Timothy Ciesielski et al. Cadmium Exposure and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in U.S. Children. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 May; 120(5): 758–763.  27. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104152

[11] CDC (2012) Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call for Primary Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/acclpp/final_document_010412.pdf

[12] Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (2010) Artificial Turf Study: Leachate and Stormwater Characteristics. http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialturf/dep_artificial_turf_report.pdf

PERSPECTIVE: Keeping Up the Clean Energy Momentum in Connecticut

by Claire Coleman Despite President Trump’s best efforts to return to dirty, outdated fuels, clean energy is spreading like a wildfire across the country – in red and blue states alike. From California to Iowa, and Minnesota to Massachusetts, states are building affordable, local wind and solar power because they know the long-term benefits will free them from outdated fuels that pollute our air and water and change our climate.

Connecticut has historically been a leader on clean energy for the same reasons, and as a coastal state, knows the impacts of climate change: intense storms, serious drought, and unusual weather patterns. But despite the rising tides, recently our efforts to combat climate change are lagging behind many of our neighboring states. For example, Connecticut is largely absent from a recently published report by Union of Concerned Scientists, ranking states for leadership on “clean energy momentum,” and was not ranked among the top 15 states.

So what can Connecticut do to keep up clean energy momentum?

A first critical step is to make Connecticut accountable for the commitment the state made to reduce carbon pollution when it passed the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2008. Despite the robust, science-based targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 10 percent below 1990 emissions by 2020, and by 80 percent below 2001 emissions by 2050, Connecticut’s  GHG emissions are rising rather than declining. We need to change course and ensure Connecticut stays on track by adding interim targets. Connecticut Fund for the Environment supports a 55 percent reduction by 2030 and 75 percent reduction by 2040. Additionally, state agencies should be required to take climate change impacts into consideration when making planning and policy decisions. These new targets will hold our government accountable to stop further damage to the climate and create healthy and safe communities.

A second crucial step is to strengthen standards that require cleaner energy in the electric sector. Connecticut’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires electric suppliers to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewables like wind and solar by 2020. But Connecticut can realize greater returns by establishing longer-term targets. Other states in the region have put more aggressive standards in place: New York has a mandate of achieving 50 percent renewable generation by 2030; Rhode Island’s mandate is 38.5 percent by 2035; and Maine’s is 40 percent by 2017. Extending and strengthening our Renewable Portfolio Standard as our neighbors have done will make the air we breathe safer and drive investment in solar and wind development in Connecticut.

Ramping up local clean energy efforts will also create high-wage work in Connecticut—rather than buying our clean energy from neighboring states and Canada, fueling their economy instead of our own. Establishing a full-scale shared solar program, like so many other states already benefit from, would promote equal access to clean energy and spur local, private investment. Likewise, developing off-shore wind resources would create jobs at our ports and generate low-cost, reliable wind power for Connecticut residents.

This legislative session, the Connecticut legislature can put us back on the map of clean energy leaders. They can take action to create stronger standards that will halt further damage to our climate and reduce unhealthy air pollution. Connecticut’s residents deserve robust metrics to hold our government accountable, to prevent climate damage, and to ensure Connecticut is prepared to take advantage of clean energy innovations that will bring jobs to the state.

Delays in renewing our commitment to clean energy will harm our families, our children, and future generations. The time is now to go all-in on a solid clean energy future for Connecticut.

_______________________________

Connecticut Fund for the Environment climate and energy attorney Claire Coleman previously served as Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where she worked on issues including energy policy and regulation, and in private practice.  

Connecticut Fund for the Environment and its bi-state program Save the Sound protect the land, air, and water of Connecticut and Long Island Sound. CFE uses legal and scientific expertise to benefit our environment for current and future generations, and in 2008 helped lead a grassroots coalition to pass the groundbreaking Global Warming Solutions Act.

PERSPECTIVE - Suicide Prevention: Beyond the “13 Reasons Why”

by Rachel Papke The Netflix series ‘13 Reasons Why’ has sparked a national conversation about suicide. We see this happen a lot when there’s a big story to tell that strikes a controversial cord. But here’s my opinion: These conversations need to extend beyond the short lifespan of a big story or a popular movie or series.

Whether you know it or not, there are people and organizations working tirelessly year-round to bring suicide prevention into the light. When will those efforts take the spotlight? It’s their work that should be our focus, that we should support and reference throughout the year to have meaningful conversations about mental health and suicide prevention. Suicide prevention efforts exist, persist, and extend far beyond the ‘13 Reasons Why.’

What can you do?

Engage in conversations with each other, your children, your communities, and beyond.

Why do we need to talk about suicide with high school students?

• 6% of Connecticut high school students said they felt sad or hopeless for 2 or more weeks in a row over the past 12 months*

• 4% of Connecticut high school students seriously contemplated suicide in the past year*

• 9% of Connecticut high school students attempted suicide in the past year*

• 4% of Connecticut high school students said they got the kind of help they needed when they felt sad, angry, hopeless, or anxious*

• Nationally, almost 1 in 4 high school females seriously considered suicide and 1 in 5 made a plan for how they would attempt suicide*

Suicide is a major public health concern, and we need to always have conversations using safe messaging,supporting help-seeking behavior.

Understand that suicide contagion is a real concern with decades of research to back up its existence. Because of the graphic and triggering content in this series the producers have a tremendous responsibility to adhere to safe messaging recommendations to prevent suicides.

Recently, Netflix responded to the myriad concerns from individuals and organizations regarding this and they are working to add more trigger warnings and place the www.13reasonswhy.info website at the start of the series so that it is visible and viewers know where to go if they need immediate help.

Talking about Suicide

If you’re not sure where to start, I’ve included links to help you start that conversation. Please take the time to educate yourself. Then, start the conversation utilizing these resources to help you. Please share these resources with your network to help keep the conversation going in a safe way that promotes mental health and prevents suicide.

Ask your child, “How are you feeling?”

Maybe they’re embarrassed to share their thoughts with others. Or, they’ve tried talking about it, but don’t feel anyone listened or understood. Help them understand that there are friends, family members, counselors, and therapists available that want to help and are ready to listen.

If you, a friend or family member is struggling emotionally, you, are not alone. The number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 800-273-8255.

___________________________

Rachel Papke is the Communications Manager at the Jordan Porco Foundation charity. She earned her Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Resources

• National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

• CT Suicide Advisory Board

• JED Foundation 13 Reasons Why Talking Points

• Parental Perspective

• Safe Messaging

• Teachable Moments from “13 Reasons Why”

• Resources for Suicide Prevention

Note: The opinions expressed in this perspective piece are personal, and not those of the Jordan Porco Foundation. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as mental health advice from the individual author or the Jordan Porco Foundation. You should consult a mental health professional for advice regarding your individual situation.If you need support now, call the Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255, or, text HOME to 741741 to get help 24/7 from the Crisis Text Line. If you or someone you know needs help, you can visit the Jordan Porco Foundation’s resources page.

*2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey data from the Connecticut DPH and the CDC

PERSPECTIVE: Cheers to Farm Brewers and Tomorrow’s Homegrown Jobs

by Brett Broesder Connecticut’s craft brewery industry is growing, and if lawmakers pass legislation that paves the way for farm brewers to grow statewide, the Nutmeg State will be in a better position to win tomorrow’s good-paying craft beer jobs.

Our state is currently home to more than 50 craft breweries; Connecticut brewers alone are producing more than 3 million gallons annually. The economic impact of the craft beer industry on our state is nearly $569 million every year.

Although craft breweries seem to be popping up everywhere, there’s still a lot of room for growth. In fact, nationwide over 1,000 cities with populations of more than 10,000 people still do not have a craft brewery, confirming that there is still room for growth in the marketplace.

Connecticut lags behind its neighbors. For example, in Massachusetts, there are currently more than 80 craft breweries with an annual economic impact of more than $1.4 billion. On the other hand, the Empire State is home to over 200 craft breweries with an annual economic impact of $3 billion.

The Nutmeg State’s craft beer industry is still growing. There are more than 40 new craft breweries in the planning stages across the state. Not only are craft breweries growing across the state, they’re booming nationwide. In fact, three decades ago, there were less than 125 breweries nationwide. Today, there are more than 5,300, accounting for more than 424,000 jobs.

Across the country, craft brewers created almost 7,000 jobs in 2016, bringing the total amount of industry jobs to nearly 129,000. Craft brewers also saw a six percent year-over-year rise in volume, producing over 24.6 million gallons of beer. Also, the rate at which craft breweries are opening is much faster than that which they’re closing.

One reason for our neighboring states having a leg up on craft brewery growth is their incentivizing farm brewing. In 2012, the New York State Legislature passed – and the governor signed into law – a bill creating a farm brewery license.

Since the license became available in 2013, more than 130 farm brewers have been permitted, creating jobs and growing the state’s economy. In fact, since 2013, craft beer production in New York State has increased by more than 50 percent.

Now, Connecticut has an opportunity to start the process of catching up if the General Assembly passes, and the governor signs, a bill that would create a farm brewers permit. This legislation – An Act Establishing a Manufacturer Permit for Farm Brewers (HB 5928) – allows for the manufacture, storage, bottling, and wholesale distribution and sale of beer manufactured at any place or premises located on a farm.

The permit also allows permitees to sell their craft beer at a farmers market, and requires permittees to use a certain amount of hops, barley, and other fermentable grown or malted in the state. After fulfilling these requirements, and purchasing a $300 permit, farm breweries can then advertise their products as “Connecticut Craft Beers.”

With this bill, state lawmakers have a real opportunity to help strengthen both the craft brewery industry and agriculture. And when a farmer and a brewery partner up, they create jobs, keep farmers farming, and help small businesses grow and thrive.

Connecticut’s House of Representatives recently passed the farm brewers bill unanimously. It’s now up to the State Senate to pass it, and for the governor to sign it into law.

_______________________________________

Brett Broesder is Co-Founder and Vice President of the Campaign for Tomorrow’s Jobs, which focuses on growing Connecticut’s economy for present and future generations in three key policy areas:  workforce preparedness, business growth & innovation and fiscal sustainability.   

PERSPECTIVE: Wildlife Watching, Not Hunting, Is Better Choice for State Residents and Economy

by Annie Hornish Proponents of HB 5499, expansion of Sunday hunting to include guns on private land, argue that this bill will reduce deer populations, but this is not true.

Deer will produce more fawns and breed at an earlier age after their numbers are reduced. The same pattern repeats: deer are killed by archers in the fall, yet their numbers bounce back by summer.

When doing the math, it is easy to see why HB 5499 won’t reduce the deer population. According to deer harvest figures provided by Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), from September 15, 2016 through January 17, 2017 (latest available), Connecticut archers removed 5,088 deer from private land, and 3,729 deer were killed by shotgun/rifle and muzzleloader.

We can assume that a similar number of deer would be killed on a Sunday as on a Saturday with the additional forms of hunting (i.e., shotgun/rifle and muzzleloader). The latest figures for Saturday volume were 1,218 (shotgun/rifle (961) + muzzleloader (257) (2014)). Assuming this number is similar for the 2016-17 deer hunting season, passage of HB 5499 would therefore remove another 1,218 deer.

The last statewide deer population estimate, which was done in 2006, yielded 124,000 deer. If we assume that the deer population has remained the same for the past 8 years, a liberal estimate of this additional “take” would be less than 1% of the deer population. If we assume that the population is higher now than it was 8 years ago (this is the widely-held assumption from proponents of this bill, including DEEP), the additional “take” would drop below 1%.

Factoring in the additional number of deer taken by archers on private land under special landowner hunting provisions allowed per DEEP, the grand total number of deer killed still amounts to only 1% of the deer population or significantly less, depending on the current size of the deer population, and removing an additional 1% of the deer population will not, even in the immediate short term, significantly reduce deer numbers in Connecticut.

Like with deer, trapping of coyotes does not decrease the population, and may make the problem worse. One study found that even when up to 70% of their numbers are removed, coyote populations bounce back quickly. This is because a stable pack has only one alpha pair, and they are the only ones who reproduce. When one or both members of that alpha pair is killed, other pairs form and reproduce (breeding at earlier ages and having larger litters). Also, unstable packs can attract transient coyotes. The solution to conflicts with coyotes is public education on removal of attractants (e.g., accessible garbage, pet food left outside), and hazing to curb undesired coyote behavior.)

Deer problem management programs that focus on site-specific solutions offer successful, long-term solutions to conflicts with deer (e.g., a Michigan-based “Don’t Veer for Deer” program reduced deer-car collisions 25% despite a 34% increase in herd size; PZP immunocontraception programs; public education on deer resistant plantings). These solutions are not only sustainable solutions, but humane solutions.

Per the latest survey by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, wildlife watchers (defined as observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife) in Connecticut not only outnumber hunters by a margin of 29 to 1, but they also outspend hunters by 7.4 to 1, contributing about $510 million to the economy annually.

Further, the survey also shows the following 10-year trends for Connecticut: a 42% increase in the number of wildlife watchers (from 774,000 to 1,102,000), and a 39% decrease in the number of hunters (from 62,000 to 38,000).

Connecticut should be forging policies that cater to wildlife watchers instead of pouring limited tax dollars into programs catering to a diminishing number of hunters.

___________________________________

Annie Hornish is Connecticut State Director of The Humane Society of the United States.

PERSPECTIVE: People, Not Cars, Should Be Union Station Priority

by Krysia Solheim The New Haven community has consistently voiced opposition to the State's plan to build a new $50 million parking garage for Union Station in New Haven, and the State has failed to adequately respond to our concerns, requests, and comments on the design and the environmental impact assessment.

The New Haven community wants new infrastructure and development to prioritize people, not cars. Currently, 30 percent of New Haven residents, including myself, do not own a car.[1] We want a city with better mass transit and better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and connectivity. We do not want more parking garages or more public space allocated to cars.

We also want development to support healthy lifestyles and enable a vital New Haven.

New Haven residents suffer from the highest rates of asthma hospitalization in the state - the neighborhood surrounding Union Station is an asthma hot spot.[2] Air quality will continue to worsen if the garage is built because more people will drive to Union Station instead of using more sustainable modes of transportation to get there.

The State has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 2001 levels by 2050 and the City of New Haven is in the process of committing to the same target. Transportation emissions account for 36 percent (2013 inventory)[3] of Connecticut's greenhouse gas emissions. They account for about 26 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions. It is astounding then, that the State wants to spend $50 million on a garage that will only induce more people to drive instead of investing funds to induce more people to walk, bike, and take transit.

Greenhouse gas emissions are a regional and global issue and the State should be seriously considering environmental impacts and how to protect people, especially low-income environmental justice communities who have long borne the brunt of pollution and are the most vulnerable to climate change impacts.

The City of New Haven and the New Haven Parking Authority understand what the community wants and should be allowed to continue to manage Union Station. They have invested in multimodal connectivity to the station, including a free downtown shuttle with GPS and bike parking infrastructure, and have plans for further transportation oriented development in line with this area’s needs.

I have lived most of my life abroad and have seen wonderful examples of cities that have invested in their train stations and multimodal connectivity to ensure that their communities have reliable access to jobs, that they have clean air, and that they do not have to spend a burdensome portion of their income on transportation or subsidizing the increasing costs of maintaining infrastructure for cars.

I strongly believe that the City of New Haven and the New Haven Parking Authority are best equipped to bring similar forward thinking planning and infrastructure to Union Station and the Greater New Haven region.

_____________________________________

Krysia Solheim is the owner and founder of Viosimo, an environmental sustainability consulting firm. She holds a Bachelor of Science with Honors in Environmental Science from the University of Arizona with minors in Spanish, Arabic, and Chinese; and a Masters in Environmental Management from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Born in Arizona, Krysia grew up in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Thailand, Cyprus, Venezuela, and Qatar.  She speaks English, Spanish, and Greek fluently and intermediate Chinese and Arabic, has dual American and Greek citizenship, and is a resident of New Haven.

[1]www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html

[2] http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/hems/asthma/pdf/asthmadatabrief_2013.pdf

[3]www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/climatechange/2012_ghg_inventory_2015/ct_2013_ghg_inventory.pdf

PERSPECTIVE: Don't Overlook Your Foreign Assets

by Sharon K. Brune Are you subject to IRS penalties of $10,000 or more -- and don’t even know it?

Do you have a foreign bank account or other foreign asset? If you neglected to properly report such accounts or investments, you may be liable for civil and criminal penalties that start at $10,000 – even if you don’t owe any taxes on that foreign money!

There is a laundry list of forms the IRS may require from people who hold foreign bank accounts or other assets.  Chief among them is the FinCEN Form 114, colloquially known as the FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts).  It has a fairly low threshold for reporting, and requires not only direct account holders to report, but also requires reporting by those with signature authority over foreign accounts and majority owners of business entities with foreign accounts, among others.  In short, you might think your account is too small or your connection to a foreign asset is too minimal to require reporting, but you may well be wrong.

Frequently taxpayers are surprised to learn they were required to file forms related to foreign assets.  Commonly heard laments include these and countless other variations:

• I’ve only got two accounts of $5,000 each.
• I only have $10,000 in a single account that I haven’t touched in years.
• It’s not my account – I only have signature authority over an account in case something happens to my parents who live in another country.
• I’m a citizen of another country but living in the US – I don’t need to report my foreign assets, do I?
• My accounts are in Canada. That’s not foreign, is it?
• I own a corporation or partnership that does business abroad. We have foreign bank accounts for these branches.  They’re not mine.
• My grandfather, who lives in a foreign country, created a trust for my benefit. I didn’t receive any money this year.

In each of the above scenarios, there is a strong likelihood that a reporting requirement exists – even if you don’t owe taxes on the accounts.

Bank accounts aren’t the only assets that need to be reported.  Various other forms address reporting investments in foreign businesses, receipt of bequests from foreign persons, ownership of foreign rental property, loans to a foreign party, to name but a few.

Individuals aren’t the only ones required to file these reports.  Some forms require business entities, trusts, or estates to file as well, if there are involvements with foreign assets.

New for forms filed in 2017 is a change in the due date.  Formerly required to be received by the Department of the Treasury by June 30, the revised receipt date is now April 15 with an automatic extension allowed to October 15.

Hopefully no one will be shocked to learn that income from all sources, including foreign, is required to be reported on a tax return filed by a US person or entity.

If you have overlooked filing any foreign reporting informational forms, getting “right” with the IRS will be less complicated if any income associated with foreign holdings was properly reported.  The IRS is trying to encourage compliance, knowing that in many cases people were truly unaware of the requirements.  There are disclosure programs and approaches that can allow you to get caught up, and may mitigate some of the possible penalties associated with non-filing.

Note that there is no statute of limitations when it comes to forms that were not filed – the IRS can come looking for you well beyond the typical three years’ statute of limitations normally associated with a routine Form 1040.

Burying your head in the sand and procrastinating will not make this problem go away. Better to get professional advice and take all necessary steps to comply with IRS requirements.

_______________________________

Sharon K. Brune, CPA, is a partner in the New Haven office of Beers, Hamerman, Cohen & Burger, P.C. She can be reached at 203.787.6527 x109 or sbrune@bhcbcpa.com

PERSPECTIVE: Don’t Block Emerging Technologies, Consumer Choice in Eye Care

by Gary D. LeBeau With the advent of e-commerce and new technologies involving telemedicine, the healthcare industry is transforming and is now giving consumers greater freedom than ever before.  More and more consumers are receiving their health care and health products in new ways and the Internet has been a huge asset in lowering prices, increasing access and helping working families get what they need even outside of so-called “regular” business hours.  This convenience is quickly becoming a necessity in today’s world.

For example, federal law states that patients can leave their eye doctor’s office with a copy of their prescription, giving them the choice of how they will fill it. Whether it’s through their desktop computers, an app on their mobile device or tablet, through the mail, or at a discount retailer, the choice is up to the patient to decide in consultation with their doctor.

These innovations, however, create new challenges in the legal, legislative, and regulatory arenas, as established providers often seek to restrict competition and protect their market share from emerging threats.   .  This has been especially evident in the contact lens market, which has been repeatedly targeted by protectionist legislation that ignores the reality of modern day technologies in telemedicine.

Proposed legislation frequently uses “protecting public health” as a rationale for restricting the use of new technology in eye care.  In fact, there is not a single reported instance of a patient being harmed using these new technologies and there are multiple tools used to screen patients and direct them to a medical provider when appropriate.  In addition, physicians should always be given the discretion to use the technologies that – in their medical judgment – are in the best interest of their individual patients.

Here in Connecticut, H.B. 6012, An Act Concerning Consumer Protection in Eye Care, looks to amend general statues to require various mandates on industry and requirements for consumers before permitting a remote or in-person eye assessment using automated equipment or an application designed to be used on a telephone, computer or Internet-based mobile device.  If enacted, this legislation will make Connecticut stand alone as the state with the most stringent restrictions on consumer choice.  Other states, including Virginia, have recently passed legislation going in the opposite direction to specifically allow the use of this ocular technology.

Connecticut Legislators should resist attempts to stifle innovation and prevent consumers from making their own decisions.  Connecticut should not place itself at a competitive disadvantage with other states when it comes to emerging technologies and innovation in the health care sector.

____________________________

Gary D. LeBeau was a Connecticut state representative (1991- 1995) and a state senator (1997-2015) during which time he served as co-chair of the Commerce Committee.  He also served as co-chair of the National Council of State Legislators Commerce and Labor Committee from 2010 to 2014 and first chairperson of the state legislature’s Manufacturing Caucus, 2012-2015.