PERSPECTIVE: Law is the Fabric That Holds Society Together

by Richard A. Robinson Let's face it, regardless of one's political leaning, economic philosophy, or cultural beliefs, we are in the midst of great turmoil. In the face of so much uncertainty, I initially found it somewhat difficult to be both sincere and inspiring.  But as I continued preparing, I realized that I had been looking for inspiration in all of the wrong places.

In our busy lives, we turn to video clips and sound bites for news and let the tenor of these brief snippets shape our outlook. Our mood is at the mercy of headlines, news feeds, and 140 character messages. We are accustomed to looking to our leaders and other public figures for encouragement and inspiration, and when it isn't readily available, we are easily discouraged. So, in times like these, we need to think a little bit more about the sources of our hope, encouragement, and inspiration.

When you think about it, doesn't real inspiration come from the people we live with, the people that we work with, and the people that we interact with on a daily basis? People who work hard and do their best to make the world a better place in their own unique way. People who make a commitment to something worthwhile and important, just as all of you have done.

The bottom line is that the reason we are celebrating today is because you are the future. The direction we will follow as a profession, as a nation, and as a world, is up to you.  Is that a bit scary? It should be! But it should also be exciting and exhilarating. As you graduate and prepare to embark on your career in the law, you hold tremendous power. On this most important day, I'd like for you to think about that power and to truly comprehend its significance.

So what does this mean for you? It means that, as you begin your career in the law, it is essential for you to understand that your obligations as an attorney extend far beyond the interests of your clients. They extend to the justice system, to the legal profession, and to society at large.

William Shakespeare focused on this duality in his play Henry the Sixth. The play includes a scene in which a character named Jack Cade, the leader of a rebellion against the crown, muses about what he would do if he were king. It is then that one of his followers, Dick the Butcher, utters what I believe is the most misunderstood line in all of Shakespeare's writings: "The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers." Cade heartily agrees. i

While many people believe that Shakespeare was expressing society's frustration with the lawyers and the legal profession, others, including myself, believe that he was actually paying us the ultimate compliment by pointing out that lawyers and the rule of law are the only things protecting society from anarchy. If you want to bring down society and render the people powerless, the first thing that you must do is get rid of the rule of law and all those who fight to protect it.

John Curtin, a former president of the American Bar Association once remarked that "[a]nyone who believes a better day dawns when lawyers are eliminated has the burden of explaining who will take their place. Who will protect the poor, the injured, the victims of negligence, the victims of . . . discrimination, and the victims of . . . violence? . . . Lawyers are the simple yet essential means by which people seek to vindicate their rights and we must not foreclose that means." ii

As you prepare to enter the practice of law, I urge you to think about the power that you hold, and strive to balance your obligation to your clients with your duties as an officer of the legal system. Our profession needs individuals who understand that, when a single attorney starts to chip away at the rule of law in order to secure an easy win for their client, it undermines the bedrock of our society. I recognize that, at times, this may not be easy. This is why our profession is in dire need of individuals who are willing to devote their time to working through these issues. Our small steps matter.

What we do every day affects the way that our profession is perceived by the public. The way that we act in the courtroom, the tone of voice that we employ, and whether we choose to treat others with dignity and respect. Our everyday words and deeds express our commitment, or lack thereof, to a fair and effective justice system. The simple decision to conduct ourselves in a manner that fosters respect also builds respect for what we do. When our own actions are added to those of our colleagues, we have an effective force for improvement.

If each of us strives to balance our duties to the public with our commitment to fairness, justice, and the rule of law, it will go a long way to restoring the public's faith in our profession and our legal system as a whole. This is particularly important in times of uncertainty. As you embark on your legal career, I urge you to keep this balance in mind. In doing so, you will serve as a source of inspiration and motivate others to take similar action.

Today you are taking a great step in your journey toward the practice of law and, on this special occasion, we celebrate the success that comes from many years of your hard work, sacrifice, and dedication. You have achieved a major goal by making major sacrifices. However, as others have said, what you get by achieving your goals is not as important as what you become by achieving your goals. The power to practice law brings not only the financial ability to support yourself and your family; it also brings along with it the responsibility to assist others and to help shape the legal profession of the future.

We are a remarkable people, living in a remarkable country, with a remarkable system of laws and justice, yet we are not perfect. As a quinquagenarian, I can remember some very turbulent times, the crescendo of the civil rights movement, the assassination of a United States President, a Presidential candidate, and several national civil rights leaders. I remember what happened at Kent State, and the burning of some of our major cities. These are the type of things that have destroyed other nations. Yet, we did more than survive; we thrived. So what saved us? What was different?

I believe that it was the hard work, dedication and sacrifices of people like you. People that chose paths similar to the ones that brought you here today. People who know that a lawyer assumes not only an obligation to their clients, but also solemn duties as an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

The oaths that you will eventually take and various rules, laws and regulations related to the practice of law are all designed to help you reach this lofty goal; you would be wise to heed them. But make no mistake, what I am asking you to do runs much deeper.

The legal profession is a noble one, but it is often greatly misunderstood. Many assume that lawyers are merely troublemakers that bring lawsuits that should not be brought and defend that which should not be defended. In reality, the law is the very fabric that holds our society together and, as lawyers, you bear the responsibility of being its tailors.

Look at any form of mass media today and you will see that we are living in interesting and troubling times. Both present events and those which lie on the horizon will stretch this fabric beyond its tearing point. As lawyers, you bear the tremendous burden of mending any rift that may occur.

Bear this responsibility well. Approach it with civility, reason, respect, compassion, and great purpose. The cold dispassionate procedures and technicalities of the legal profession often makes people think that lawyers are more interested in money, papers, forms, and procedures than they are in the everyday struggles of life.

People go to lawyers because they believe them to be problem solvers that will help them get through life's struggles. It would be a great disservice to let them leave feeling that they were not heard or, even worse, believing that your involvement not only failed to put out the embers of their angst, but fanned the flames that eventually consumed them.

Remember that you are more than just a representative of your clients. You are an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Persuade when you can, compromise when you should, and fight when you must.

Your responsibilities as lawyers will be great. You are the tailors of the very fabric of our society. Although you may never receive a hero's welcome for the work that you do, please know that you are our heroes.

I ask that you do more than just follow the rules, oaths, laws, and regulations that I mentioned earlier. I ask you to fully accept your responsibilities as lawyers, and to continue to listen ever so closely for that subtle tearing sound because you are the keepers of the cloth.

_________________________________

Richard A. Robinson is an Associate Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Connecticut in 1979 and a Juris Doctor degree from West Virginia University School of Law in 1984. Justice Robinson’s career is complimented by an array of public and judicial service.  This is an excerpt of remarks delivered on May 14 at the Commencement and Doctoral Hooding ceremony of the Quinnipiac University School of Law in the TD Bank Sports Center on the university’s York Hill Campus.

i WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, THE SECOND PART OF KING HENRY THE SIXTH act 4, sc. 2.

ii THOMAS F. BURKE, LAWYERS, LAWSUITS AND LEGAL RIGHTS 24 (2002).

PERSPECTIVE: On the Job Hunt After Cancer

by Julie Jansen A recent Harris Poll survey conducted on behalf of Cancer and Careers (CancerAndCareers.org) found that 78% of the cancer survivors surveyed were concerned that their cancer diagnosis would hinder their ability to find a new job. For many survivors, job hunting after cancer proves to be a challenging experience. However, you can rest assured that if you are qualified for a job, an employer cannot refuse to hire you simply because you have had cancer.

If you are one of those survivors who is back on the job market after battling cancer, here are some tips to help make your job search a success.

Spiff Up Your Resume

The primary goal of your resume is to describe your experience and achievements in a way that makes a prospective employer want to set up an interview with you to talk about how you can do the same great things for them. A resume is not a job description. So keep lists of tasks and responsibilities short and to the point. Instead, your resume should focus more on your accomplishments and how you were able to make a positive difference to your department or company. A bulleted format works best for this part of your resume.

Another important element of a contemporary resume is a profile or summary, which is a brief paragraph at the top of your resume that summarizes your work experience. Your summary can be used to add a bit of personality to your resume. This is a good place to list the unique qualities that make you the right fit for the job.

Most companies use applicant-tracking software to scan your resume’s keywords before a human reads it. So it’s important to add the right keywords to your resume. Use technical or functional descriptors such as project management, event planning, and website design, rather than clichéd phrases like effective communicator and team player.

Absolutely add volunteer experience to your resume, especially if you have an employment gap because you took time off for treatment or had to leave your job. Include a list of achievements for your volunteer experience, just as you would for your paid jobs.

Finally, despite the persistent myth that a resume should only be one page, if you have worked for two or more years, then a two-page resume is the new rule of thumb.

Prepare for the Interview

Interviewing for a new job is nerve wracking for most people, with or without a cancer history. Preparation is the key to feeling more comfortable and confident during the interview process – and to getting invited back for that second interview.

The most important thing an employer is looking for during the interview process is how you, the job candidate, can solve their problems and meet their needs. Research the company as much as you can so that you can incorporate your knowledge of the company into the interview. This will also help you to ask smart, thoughtful questions about the job you’re applying for.

Prepare answers to the standard questions that are often asked during an interview, for example:

• Tell me about yourself.
• What are your strengths and weaknesses?
• Describe a time when you failed.

When answering, tell stories about your achievements and use concrete examples – but keep your answers brief and meaningful. Stay composed, and don’t let an interviewer’s quirky questions rattle you. Unless a question or request is discriminatory, just go with the flow.

Speaking of discrimination, you are not obligated to share the fact that you had cancer. And a prospective employer legally cannot ask you this question. However, in case a question about your health history does come up, you should decide in advance what your response will be. It is also a good idea to come up with a brief answer to questions about gaps in your work history.

If you are asked an uncomfortable question, try not to ramble. Instead, turn the conversation back to how you can make a positive difference for your potential employer.

The thought of looking for employment after cancer can be a frightening one. However, the good news is that many companies are hiring, and now that you are armed with these job- hunting tips, you’re more prepared than ever to land that job you’re after.

______________________________________

Julie Jansen is a career coach, resume and LinkedIn profile writer, and the author of I Don’t Know What I Want, But I Know It’s Not This: A Step-By-Step Guide to Finding Gratifying Work. She is a graduate of the University of Hartford.  This article first appeared in Coping magazine.  Her website is JulieJansen.net.

PERSPECTIVE: 10 Reasons Your Performance Appraisal Might Be Useless

by Karen Hinds Are your performance appraisals useless? If you are a manager, end of year can often make you feel like a Christmas Grinch. You feel rushed, stressed, and even dread as you try to summarize an entire year of highs and lows on an employee’s performance appraisal. Invariably, someone will feel like they received a lump of coal after reading what they hoped would be a good review.

For employees, it’s a source of anxiety and even anger as they anticipate the results of their performance appraisals. Why do we tolerate this annual drain on productivity and morale? There are simple fixes, if done throughout the year, to make this process relevant and valuable to an employee’s growth. Here are 10 reasons why your current process might be of little or no value.

1. Emphasis is on the mistakes and the past.

Unfortunately, there are managers who view the appraisal process as an opportunity to only recap everything an employee has gotten wrong throughout the year. This is incredibly demotivating and hampers morale as well as trust in that relationship. Focusing on the past leaves no room for forward thinking and growth, which is the intent of an appraisal.

2. Appraisal is full of surprises.

An employee should not be surprised by what is written on their appraisal if the manager has done a great job communicating throughout the year. If surprises exist, it is an indication the manager/employee relationship is damaged and ineffective. Errors are inevitable, but the manager should immediately identify the error and help to design a plan of action that helps the employee correct the mistake and keep growing. When an employee does well, it also should be immediately acknowledged, documented, and celebrated.

3. No regular check-in.

Many performance appraisals only see the light of day when it’s time to write a new one for the upcoming year. If this is how your team operates, it is a complete waste of time. The appraisal should be a living, breathing document used as a roadmap throughout the year. Monthly and quarterly reviews with adjustments will increase the probability of the employee meeting and even exceeding the expectations set.

4. One-way conversations.

If an employee is simply sitting and listening to the manager during a performance appraisal or given a report to read, it is a sure sign the process is deeply flawed. This should be a two-way conversation where the employee and manager are both engaged. The manager and employee should be reviewing progress, examining the best way going forward, celebrating milestones, and setting new goals together.  As mentioned earlier, it’s an ongoing conversation, not an end-of-year marathon to talk and fill out paperwork.

5. No preparation for advancement.

An effective manager should know their primary job is to provide the environment where each employee can reach their peak performance and then move on, whether a vertical or lateral move.  Even when the organization is flat, advancement can still be made by varying projects and learning new roles and skills sets.

6. Setting goals that are not S.M.A.R.T.

Effective evaluation of an employee’s progress depends on the quality of the goals set. All goals must be measurable and adhere to the S.M.A.R.T standards of being Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-specific.

7. Manager’s unconscious bias.

Managers are not perfect and even the best-intentioned manager has unconscious bias. The bias could be based on an employee’s personal style, preferences, gender, age, accomplishments, race, ethnicity, etc. It’s also not unusual for managers to carry a chip on their shoulder caused by an incident going back months. When these behaviors are present, a successful appraisal is impossible.

8. Avoiding negative feedback.

Some managers cower at the thought of having to deliver negative feedback, especially to employees who may have a reputation of being difficult. They might tiptoe around the real issues and deliver a weak appraisal with no value by only highlighting what worked well.

9. Confusing performance and attitude.

Some employees are great talkers, enthusiastic, and friendly around the office but are poor performers. There are also employees who are exceptional performers but lack the social skills or choose not to be overly enthusiastic because that’s their personality style. They may also consciously choose to be less engaged socially due to the work environment. Managers need to be clear on what they are measuring: Is it performance or attitude?

10. Manager was never trained.

No one was born with excellent managerial skills, and even if you have managed people for many years, it is not an indication you are a competent manager or you know how to execute an effective performance evaluation. Companies should hold educational sessions to teach managers how to review an employee’s performance in a fair manner and set them up for future success.

_________________________________

Karen Hinds is president and CEO of Workplace Success Group, a Connecticut-based strategic talent development company. She has delivered talks about how to properly develop emerging leaders to companies, associations and organizations throughout the Greater Hartford region. She has presented “Bounce-Back Power: Everyday Strategies to Develop Resilience” as part of the University of Hartford’s Entrepreneurial Center professional development series. 

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.