PERSPECTIVE: Government Algorithms and the Public’s Right to Know

by Mitchell W. Pearlman In many respects, computers have made life easier. But they have also made life quite a bit more complicated. For example, before the computer age most government documents were on paper. Today, people not only need access to government information on computer media and in computer-readable formats, they need access to the computer programs and systems government uses to make policy and other important decisions. Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin calls this “algorithmic transparency.”

An algorithm is the step-by-step procedure by which a task is performed. People use simple algorithms in their lives every day, such as for adding numbers or sorting books. On the other hand, algorithms used in computers are often highly complex. They require sophisticated logic and advanced mathematical modeling in the design and functionality of the applications in which they are embedded. Because of this, algorithms are considered intellectual property and deemed trade secrets by most private enterprises and many government agencies that create and use them.

Governments now gather almost incomprehensible amounts of information, organize them into vast databases, and make and implement important decisions using the algorithms they create or purchase. Governments use computer algorithms in making tax policy and budget decisions; they use them in forecasting various transportation and infrastructure needs; and they use them in analyzing public health and environmental issues and formulating policy based on these analyses. Of course, if the data used are less than complete or accurate, or if the algorithms themselves are based on flawed reasoning or assumptions, then government policies and decisions based on them will likewise be flawed. Such errors can lead not only to unsound decisions, but they also can lead to an enormous waste of public resources and even to a significant loss of life.

In Connecticut, as elsewhere, various government agencies forecast income and expenditures to help guide lawmakers in constructing state budgets. Each of these offices has access to the same data sets. But the assumptions programmed into their algorithms can differ significantly, leading to different outcomes in determining whether a budget will or will not be in balance. The 2018 state budget was out-of-balance by several hundred million dollars just weeks after it was enacted. How did this happen? Was it because the data was faulty? Or was it because the algorithms, and the assumptions built into them, were wrong?

The first shots in the battle for algorithmic transparency have already been fired. Recently the New York City Council passed an algorithmic accountability bill, which establishes a task force to study, and within 18 months of passage report, how city agencies use algorithms to make decisions. The bill was enacted in the wake of a racially biased algorithm used to assess risk factors of criminal defendants. The algorithm’s source code was confidential until a federal judge ordered it to be disclosed and the bias subsequently identified.

Trade secrets and confidential commercial information – which are exempt from public disclosure under current Freedom of Information laws – often represent a significant financial investment by those enterprises and organizations that create or own them. On the other hand, computer algorithms are now – and increasingly will be – vital components in government policy and other decision making. To prevent significant errors or miscalculations in the future, many government algorithms need to be transparent so they can be publicly vetted before policy decisions are made or legislation becomes law.

Thus, proprietary rights face an important competing value when they would prevent the disclosure of information about which there is a legitimate and important public interest. The notion of an informed and knowledgeable electorate is one of the cornerstones of our country’s democratic tradition. To paraphrase the Connecticut Supreme Court in another context, trade secrets and confidential commercial information must give way when balanced against the publication of matters of public interest, in order to ensure the “uninhibited, robust and wide-open discussion of legitimate public issues.”

So in this case, as in others before it, the balance of competing interests must be resolved in favor of algorithmic transparency to the greatest extent possible. This is not to say that government need not provide some measure of just compensation if it discloses secret or confidential proprietary information. But the bottom line is that algorithmic transparency is essential to the continuance of our democratic system of governance.

___________________________

Mitchell Pearlman is the former executive director of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. He currently teaches law in the Journalism Department of the University of Connecticut at Storrs. Rogers Epstein, MIT class of 2019, also contributed to this article. The article is abstracted from a “White Paper” published by the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government (CFOG), which can be found in its entirety at www.ctfog.org.

PERSPECTIVE columns from contributing writers appear each weekend on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE - The Sky Hasn’t Fallen: Numbers Support Adoptee Equality

by Karen Caffrey Currently, the legislature is considering House Bill 5408, which would restore the right of adult adoptees born and adopted before October 1, 1983, and their adult children and grandchildren, to obtain the adoptee’s original birth certificate. This right was restored to post-October 1, 1983 adoptees in 2014.

Contrary to popular understanding, for much of Connecticut’s history both adult adoptees and adoptive parents had an absolute right to the adoptee’s original birth certificate. This was the law until 1975. This misperception is due to the history of secrecy and shame surrounding “out-of-wedlock” pregnancies, resulting in many young women being essentially forced to relinquish their infants. While the woman’s identity was hidden from the public, the law deemed it important for the adoptee and their family to know the adoptee’s biological origins.  

From 1919-2011, Connecticut finalized 62,480 adoptions. About 39,600 of them are older, pre-1983 adoptees whose rights would be restored under HB 5408. Many are in their 50s, 60s and even 70s. The way the law reads now, pre-1983 adult adoptees must go through an expensive, time-consuming and exhaustive legal process to either obtain the birth parents consent to release the original birth certificate, or to confirm the birth parent has died. (All Connecticut adoptees may obtain their original birth certificate once the birth parent is deceased.) It’s basically an expensive race to the grave.

There is overwhelming support for HB 5408. Over 200 testimonies in support of the bill were submitted by adoptees, birth and adoptive parents and adoption professionals. The bill has been endorsed by the Connecticut State Medical Society, the Connecticut Council on Adoption, and Concerned United Birthparents, the only national birthparent organization. HB 5408 has 47 bipartisan legislator cosponsors.

It’s been approved by both the Judiciary and the Appropriations Committees. By enacting this law, Connecticut would join three of our New England neighbors (Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island) and become the tenth state in the nation to restore equality to its adopted citizens.

Many adoptees are simply abandoning statutory​ avenues to search by other means, particularly by using consumer DNA testing, which only requires a saliva sample. This technology is rapidly ending genetic secrecy, even for those who haven’t tested their own DNA.  An adoptee who tests could find “Cousin Suzie” (who got a DNA test as a Christmas present), who in turns calls the birth mother before she even knows the adoptee is looking for her. This is much less private than an adoptee directly contacting her known birth mother who is named in the original birth certificate, as would be the case if HB 5408 becomes law.

So what’s the problem? Some are concerned about the very small percentage of women who may have kept the relinquishment of their infant a secret from their families, and who don’t want it to be discovered. Data collected by the American Adoption Congress from eight states during the period between 2000-2011 indicates that approximately 1 out of 2000 birth mothers will refuse contact by their adult offspring. (In Connecticut, not one of the 35 “Contact Preference Forms” filed under the 2014 law indicates​ the birth mother prefers not to be contacted.) The vast majority of birth mothers welcome at least a phone call, if not more extensive contact and exchange of information, with the adult adoptee. Neither in Connecticut nor other states that have enacted these laws have the feared, catastrophic consequences come to pass.

We can only have compassion for the very human fear of being rejected or judged if someone discovers our hidden secret. Some birth mothers say, “I’m so ashamed of what I did; I thought you would be mad at me for not telling you all these years; I was afraid you would judge me; I didn’t want you to think less of me; I don’t want to remember that time in my life”.

And yet despite these fears and difficulties, all over the country birth mothers, birth fathers and adult adoptees are finding each other, facing their secrets, confronting their fears and handling their lives like the adults that they are. Surprisingly, we find that our families love us, even with our flaws and imperfections. They may be surprised, they may be angry, and they may feel hurt, yet they continue to love us (and we continue to love them).

A final consideration: most adoptee rights advocates are women. We are women connecting with other women. We are women seeking our biological roots, our identity, our family medical history (to help ourselves and our own children) and our heritage. We do not want to hurt our sisters in womanhood, or our fathers, or other biological family members. We simply want to have the same freedom and equality as all other citizens to know who we are and where we came from.

__________________________

Karen Caffrey, LPC, JD is the President of Access Connecticut Now, Inc., a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization of adoptees, birth and adoptive parents and adoption professionals dedicating to restoring the right of adult adoptees to obtain their original birth certificate.  She may be reached at the organization’s website, www.accessconnecticut.org or at 860-306-0900.

PERSPECTIVE - The Bond Lock: A Threat to Connecticut´s Economy

by Ray Noonan and Rachel Silbermann Connecticut's future lies in opening new pathways to economic growth and opportunity for businesses, families, and communities. To achieve these goals, Connecticut needs a predictable and coherent fiscal policy that enables lawmakers to make the strategic choices that can spur economic growth. Unfortunately, a set of fiscal restrictions added to the budget in the final hours of negotiations last year might bring significant uncertainty on future fiscal policy and leave legislators unable to respond to current and future crises.

The fiscal restrictions - spending cap, bonding cap, volatility cap, appropriations cap, and Bond Lock - place a set of rules to guide Connecticut´s fiscal policy. When well-designed, fiscal restrictions can help create a strong foundation for the state´s budget practices, enabling legislators to focus on forward-looking investments to generate opportunity and spur economic growth. When hastily designed, however, restrictions may constrain fiscal policy to the point of making it wholly ineffective. 

One of the fiscal restrictions, the Bond Lock, might have this effect. The Bond Lock as a policy is untested to the point it could introduce unprecedented levels of uncertainty and potential instability to Connecticut´s fiscal future. The Bond Lock stipulates that, whenever the state issues a bond after May 15, it must vow not to change any of the new fiscal restrictions for the life of the bond except in extraordinary circumstances. As bond covenants are legally binding contracts, the Bond Lock will force the state to keep the fiscal restraints in place, preventing the governor and legislature from pursuing critical investments. In effect, it will prevent lawmakers adapting the budget for any changes—expected or unexpected—for more than a decade.

The consequences of the Bond Lock go beyond limiting the General Assembly´s fiscal authority. The uncertainty created by a broad-reaching bond covenant, once in place, could potentially damage Connecticut's credit rating and increase our borrowing costs. Under the Bond Lock, any attempt by the General Assembly to fix or amend its own fiscal rules would face the risk of expensive litigation and penalties. Even if the state were to prevail, the prospect of having state obligations tied in court might be enough to scare investors away.

National experts and bond rating agencies have warned that the Bond Lock could increase uncertainty. The Tax Policy Center pointed out that locking in strict fiscal restrictions might have unexpected long-term impacts, warning that enforcing them through bond documents brings new risks. Moody´s has talked about how the Bond Lock reduces budgetary flexibility. According to their analysis, the impact of the Bond Lock on Connecticut´s long-term credit rating is unclear. S&P wrote about how a violation of a bond covenant would create questions on who can sue the state and how.

Recent events show that the scenario of a possible Bond Lock violation is far from unlikely. Both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals introduced last week include provisions that, were the Bond Lock implemented, would break the fiscal restrictions: the Democratic plan proposed spending over the limit, while the Republican plan included some changes to the volatility cap. Either of these budget proposals would have left the state open to litigation if the Bond Lock were already in place.

Fortunately, the General Assembly is currently considering a bill (H.B. 5590) that mitigates the immediate impact of the Bond Lock by delaying its implementation on the spending cap and bonding cap and requiring various state agencies to study the cap. The bill does not, however, delay the implementation of the Lock to the volatility cap or appropriations cap, leaving the state still open to all of the uncertainty and risk associated with the Bond Lock.

We believe that the potential impacts of the Bond Lock warrant a full delay without exclusions. The General Assembly must fully evaluate and implement a set of fiscal restrictions that can genuinely produce lasting budgetary stability without taking on new credit risk, leaving it at the mercy of litigation-happy investors.

Connecticut needs an economy built on equitable opportunity to remain competitive. Our future lies in our cities, our workforce, and our willingness to connect and engage with the world at large. The Bond Lock, paired with the other fiscal restrictions, would undermine Connecticut´s fiscal reputation and would leave our state unable to respond to current or future challenges. We urge the General Assembly to assert its authority and repeal the Bond Lock this session.

_______________________

Ray Noonan is Associate Policy Fellow and Rachel Silbermann, Ph.D. is Fiscal Policy Fellow, Connecticut Voices for Children.  The organization's mission is to ensure that "all Connecticut children have an opportunity to achieve their full potential regardless of race, income or zip code."

PERSPECTIVE: Don’t Undermine the 2020 Decennial Census and Jeopardize Federal Funding

by Michelle Riordan-Nold The Connecticut Data Collaborative, on its monthly open data calls, has provided updates on data in the news. The biggest newsmaker by far has been Census 2020. Besides the challenges the Census Bureau has faced in maintaining their federal funding and finding new leadership, a recent ruling has put the accuracy of the Census 2020 count in jeopardy.

Several months ago, the Justice Department made a request that a question on citizenship be included in the Census 2020 count. Advocates raised concerns immediately about the possibility that a question on citizenship could impact whether people respond to the Census survey, but that question has been approved for inclusion in the upcoming count by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, despite grave concerns expressed by career civil servants working at the Census Bureau.

The Justice Department argues that the citizenship question would allow the agency to better enforce Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which bars the dilution of minority voting power through redistricting. The letter states, "to fully enforce those requirements, the department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violation are alleged or suspected." However, these data are collected every year in the American Community Survey and therefore are not necessary to fulfill the requirements of Section 2. The last time the immigration question was asked in a decennial census was in 1950.

Advocates are rightly concerned about the impact on the count that a citizenship question could exert.  In a November presentation by the Census Bureau, an official cited numerous examples of respondents expressing concern about the confidentiality of the data related to immigration.

The question on citizenship will not be field tested, which means there is no way to know in advance whether people will choose not respond. The Census Bureau has been finalizing and field testing questions for over a year and the only end-to-end field test is already underway in Rhode Island. Not knowing whether the citizenship question will impact response rates has two important consequences: the non-response follow-up and the undercount.

The most costly piece of the Census work is in non-response follow-up work--this is the work that Census field employees do when they go out to meet with residents and work with them to complete their census surveys. The Census budget is insufficient to conduct extensive non-response follow-up work and will result in lower funding for other Census programs such as the American Community Survey, which provides town level data for Connecticut.

The undercount has serious consequences for our country and our state.

Our immigrant residents are concentrated in major metropolitan areas--these areas are typically dependent on the federal government for crucial funding for health and human services. A question about citizenship in the current political climate could be seen as a threat in many communities. If residents choose not to respond to the survey, we could see an undercount. The decennial census population counts are used to determine legislative redistricting as well as federal funding for health and human services programs, and thus will remain in place for ten years.

Based on decennial Census counts, in Federal Fiscal year 2015, Connecticut received $8 billion in federal funds for the top 16 programs. The five largest funds that distribute aid based on decennial-census derived estimates are:

• Medicaid
• Medicare Part B - (Supplemental Medical Insurance) Physicians Fee Schedule Services
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
• Highway planning and construction
• Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers  (source: The George Washington Institute of Public Policy)

An undercount could have serious fiscal implications to our state, which is already in a fiscal crisis.

However, states are joining forces to oppose this decision. At the beginning of the month, Connecticut joined a coalition of attorneys general, cities and the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors in filing a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump Administration from demanding citizenship information in the 2020 decennial Census, according to an announcement by Attorney General George Jepsen and Secretary of the State Denise Merrill.

Good, reliable data are needed for fair provision of federal resources. Proceeding with a citizenship question without fully understanding the impact and implications it would have on the count – and the program funding that flows from it – puts the integrity of the census count, and the fair and accurate distribution of millions of dollars in doubt.

__________________________________

Michelle Riordan-Nold is Executive Director of the Connecticut Data Collaborative. She is responsible for executing the vision and strategy of the Collaborative which seeks to democratize access to public data, facilitate data-driven decision making, and build data literacy. In leading the Collaborative, she seeks to increase the use of public open data and grow the community of users across the state. The organization’s monthly open data calls  updates data users and provides opportunities to collectively impact change in the use of and access to public data.

PERSPECTIVE: The Social Responsibility of Business is Changing

by Sarah Eisele-Dyrli In 1970, Milton Freedman wrote in The New York Times Magazine that the responsibility of a corporate executive is “to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”

It turns out that the basic rules of society are changing.

In 1993, 66 percent of consumers were “likely to switch brands to one that is associated with a good cause, given similar price and quality” according to the 2017 Cone Communications CSR Study.

In 2017, that number rose to 89 percent.

This changing consumer behavior, an indicator of changing basic rules of society, results in businesses making more money.

Take Unilever.

In May, 2017, Unilever announced that their Sustainable Living brands grew “over 50 percent faster than the rest of the business” and that those brands “delivered more than 60 percent of Unilever’s growth in 2016.”

Paul Polman, Unilever CEO, commented on the results:

“There is no doubt that the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan is making us more competitive by helping us to build our brands and spur innovation, strengthen our supply chain and reduce our risks, lower our costs, and build trust in our business. It is helping Unilever to serve society and our many consumers, and in doing so, create value for shareholders.” [emphasis mine]

Unilever is benefiting financially today from the trends highlighted in the Cone study - they are making a lot of money, and are also setting themselves up to benefit over the long-term by ensuring the resources they need (human, environmental, financial, and otherwise) will still be around for years to come.

What can this example possibly mean for the 96 percent of Connecticut business owners like myself who employ fewer than 20 employees*? (*calculated from the Connecticut Small Business Profile, 2017)

Those of us who own small businesses, including individual proprietorships, can also take advantage of these changing rules of society - and profit.

Enter the Benefit Corporation (known as B Corp). There are two types of B Corps. One is a certification through B Lab, an NGO that codified the structure. The other is a type of business incorporation, and is obtained by application through the Secretary of the State. Both give legal protection to leaders who consider the interests of all stakeholders - not just shareholders or a board of directors - when making business decisions.

There are certainly businesses in Connecticut that seek to “make as much money as possible” while conforming to these new basic rules of society.

But in Connecticut, these businesses can be hard to find.

In my own search to connect with businesses here in Connecticut that are having a positive social and/or environmental impact, I continue to be met with chuckles from other business owners when I talk about what I do.

They know that these kinds of businesses are growing nationally, but they also know that there aren’t many in Connecticut yet.

Of the 1,100 B Corps in the US certified by B Lab, currently only .27 percent (3 in total) are located in Connecticut. According to the Benefit Corporation website, which tries to track the number of businesses that are actively incorporated as B Corps at the state level, there are 43 incorporated Benefit Corps listed in Connecticut, but some of these are no longer in business. The state’s B Corp law took effect in 2014.

Businesses seeking to have a positive environmental and social impact do exist in Connecticut, but may fear losing customers or clients by waving the triple bottom line flag of people, profit, planet.

Yet the findings from the Cone report suggest that by conforming to these developing basic rules of society, Connecticut businesses may actually benefit - not be harmed - by putting these values up front.

One way to signal this priority is by certifying as a B Corp through B Lab (and being able to use the recognizable B Corp seal) or incorporating as a B Corp through the state of Connecticut. The fees may be lower than you might expect, depending on your current size of operation.

Another signal we can make to consumers or customers is through communicating these values more effectively in our marketing. The Cone report found that 39 percent of consumers researched the environmental and social practices of businesses in 2016. By making it easy for consumers to identify the values they share with our businesses, we make it easier for them to make the decision to buy our products or services when they are comparable to others.

As consumers, we can benefit from the new “basic rules of society” by knowing that our hard-earned dollars are going to help address issues we care about. And as business-owners we get the added benefit of making “as much money as possible” while having the confidence that the resources we need will be available to us and our families for generations to come.

-------------------------------------------------

Sarah Eisele-Dyrli, MSW, is the founder of Social Impact Compass, based in Connecticut.  She works with business owners and social enterprises so they can have the social and environmental impact they want. She can be reached at sarah@socialimpactcompass.com or @SEiseleDyrli.

PERSPECTIVE: State Auditors Can Be Partner in Preserving Resources

by Robert J. Kane On February 3, 2017, I had the honor of becoming State Auditor. Looking back, there was so much to learn when I joined the Auditors of Public Accounts (APA), but with the help of fellow State Auditor John Geragosian and our amazing team, the transition was rather smooth.

Learning the “ins and outs” did not take long, as support from throughout the agency was overwhelming. The incredibly talented and dedicated APA staff are professional and committed to the work they do for our state. We are the General Assembly’s “eyes and ears” inside state agencies and thrive on working to make state government more accountable and efficient.

In my nine years in the State Senate, I wish I had interacted with the APA more. Serving in my new role, I now realize what a valuable resource our office is for legislators and legislative employees. We can assist them as they shape fiscal policy for years to come.

Our work is crucial to the stability of our state’s finances, securing federal funding, and ensuring state agency compliance. The work we do on whistleblower cases, in conjunction with the Attorney General, provides all citizens the opportunity to expose waste, fraud and corruption without threat of retaliation.

Being the only state to have two state auditors from differing parties creates a bipartisan office that eschews partisan politics and promotes fairness and transparency. As budget constraints and fiscal matters continue to dominate the debate, now more than ever the APA can be a true partner with the legislature in preserving state resources, protecting taxpayer dollars, and acting as the watchdog over fiscal matters.

We continually work to build these relationships and, in a short period of time, we have already surveyed our stakeholders to better serve them. We are redeveloping our website and improving the look of our reports. With these improvements, the APA seeks to build on our already exemplary reputation among government agencies and encourage greater communication with those we serve.

During 2017, our auditors completed 29 audits of state and quasi-public agencies and made 398 audit recommendations. During the past calendar year, these agencies have implemented approximately 43% of our prior recommendations.

Our audit approach entails, among other procedures, an examination and verification of financial statements, accounting records, and supporting documents; a determination of the agency's compliance with statutory and budgetary requirements; an evaluation of the agency's internal control structure; verification of the collection and proper handling of state revenue; and an examination of expenditures charged to state appropriations. Our audit reports consist of findings and recommendations and, where appropriate, certified financial statements setting forth the condition and operations of the state funds involved.

In accordance with Section 2-90 of the General Statutes, we report any unauthorized, illegal, irregular, or unsafe handling or expenditure of state funds to the Governor, the State Comptroller, the clerk of each house, and the Attorney General. We report these matters in our audit reports or by formal letter. We collectively report less serious matters such as minor losses and acts of vandalism.

State loss reports filed in 2017 with this office and the State Comptroller, in accordance with Section 4-33a of the General Statutes, disclosed approximately 308 losses, primarily through theft, vandalism, and inventory shortages involving an aggregate loss of $1,966,360.

_______________________________

This is excerpted from the Auditors of Public Accounts 2017 Annual Report, issued earlier this year, including a Message from State Auditor Robert J. Kane and portions of the Auditing State Agencies section of the report. Kane is a former Republican member of the Connecticut Senate, representing the 32nd District from 2009 to 2017.

PERSPECTIVE: Most Investors See Finances on Track in 2018

by Joseph Matthews Confidence in achieving financial goals is solidly on the positive side of the spectrum, according to a recent survey, with a significant majority of those surveyed reporting that they are on track, progressing in their desired direction.

A Morgan Stanley poll of high net worth investors revealed that 91 percent of investors surveyed believe they are on track to achieving their long-term financial goals. About 35 percent see saving for retirement as their top goal, with 33 percent most interested in transitioning wealth to the next generation – and the remaining 32 percent working to pay off a mortgage.[1]

In what could be a major statement of confidence in the future, 88 percent of Millennials, nationally, said they believe they are on track to reach their long-term goals. Interestingly, Millennials’ priorities also include saving for retirement, with 44 percent placing that objective as their top priority. But their number two and three goals swap places with many older respondents with 42 percent of Millennials preferring to pay off a mortgage, and 35 percent listing paying for a child or a grandchild’s education. [2]

While it is difficult to say what has led to this sentiment, there are a few factors to consider regarding the Connecticut economy in particular. The state added 6,000 jobs in December, pushing year-end totals to 7,700.^[3] Even manufacturing jobs increased over the year, while the largest gain came in the professional and business services category.[4]

Meanwhile, nationally, 77 percent of those polled in the Morgan Stanley survey said they expected improvement in their various state economies over the next year, and 87 percent said they expected the same for their local economies.[5]

However, when it came to their personal finances, 88 percent of those surveyed said they wish they started to save for their overall financial goals much sooner.[6]

So, despite the fact that the future is looking good in the eyes of most investors surveyed, it remains key to keep financial goals in mind. It is never too earlier to plan for the future. And, I believe, it is never too late to try to begin to make up for the years when funds might not have been earmarked for longer term financial goals.

As well, I believe that the seemingly ongoing bullish stock market should not cause an investor to shy away, believing the financial train has already left the station. Of course, while there certainly are no guarantees that this market trend will continue, there remain solid opportunities to selectively add equities to one’s portfolio – as long as long-term goals are kept in mind and the portfolio remains properly diversified.

Balance remains the watchword. That means proper balance of risk, as well as proper balance of the various types of investments in a portfolio.

So, if the stock market continues to go up or if it should pull back from record highs, each investor should feel confident that, over time, there is a plan in place that will help you achieve your financial goals.

_______________________________

Joseph Matthews is a Financial Advisor with the Wealth Management Division of Morgan Stanley in Fairfield. He can be reached at 203-319-5165 or by email at joseph.matthews@morganstanley.com.

The information contained in article is not a solicitation to purchase or sell investments. Any information presented is general in nature and not intended to provide individually tailored investment advice. The strategies and/or investments referenced may not be suitable for all investors as the appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's individual circumstances and objectives. Investing involves risks and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest. Morgan Stanley and its Financial Advisors do not provide tax or legal advice. The views expressed herein are those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the views of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, or its affiliates. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, member SIPC.

 ---------------------------

[1] Morgan Stanley Investor Pulse Poll 8; CRC # 1960216 (12/17)

[2] Morgan Stanley Investor Pulse Poll 8; CRC # 1960216 (12/17)

[3] https://www.nhregister.com/business/article/Connecticut-adds-6-000-jobs-in-December-ends-12515976.php

[4] https://www.nhregister.com/business/article/Connecticut-adds-6-000-jobs-in-December-ends-12515976.php

[5] Morgan Stanley Investor Pulse Poll 8; CRC # 1960216 (12/17)

[6] Morgan Stanley Investor Pulse Poll 8; CRC # 1960216 (12/17)

PERSPECTIVE: ATT/Time Warner Merger Could Wreak Havoc on Consumers Without Net Neutrality

by Bob Duff and Derek Slap We were pleased to see that Connecticut joined 21 other Democratic Attorneys General in the lawsuit to halt the Trump Administration Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to repeal net neutrality provisions. In addition, we proposed Senate Bill 2, An Act Concerning Internet Service Providers and Net Neutrality Principles, which would require internet service providers to abide by consumer friendly principles. We hope both efforts are successful and help protect Net Neutrality in Connecticut.

There is another pending matter that could have disastrous consequences in the absence of net neutrality: the proposed acquisition of Time Warner by AT&T. The Trump Department of Justice is suing to block the proposed merger.  Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons.  This appears to be the case here.  President Trump’s well-known animus against CNN has fueled his opposition to the deal. Many people are speculating that DOJ is suing to block the merger to curry favor with the President.

It is impossible to assess the AT&T / Time Warner merger without taking into consideration the impact that the Trump Administration FCC’s proposed net neutrality rollback would have. AT&T is the third-largest broadband provider in the United States, with 15.7 million subscribers. And they own DirecTV, by far the largest satellite television provider, with over 20 million subscribers. If the Trump Administration is successful in fully implementing its net neutrality repeal, but is unsuccessful in blocking the AT&T / Time Warner merger, it would create a nightmare scenario for consumers.

There would be nothing to stop AT&T or its subsidiaries from placing streaming content it controls – properties which would include HBO, the sporting events broadcast on Turner Sports, which include the NBA, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, and the Major League Baseball Playoffs, and the entire Warner Brothers film catalog – in a fast lane, or from slowing down delivery of content they don’t own to their subscribers.

In addition to the multi-state lawsuit to block the Trump Administration’s net neutrality repeal, we also believe Connecticut, under the leadership of Attorney General George Jepsen and Elin Katz of the Office of Consumer Counsel, should initiate an investigation and consider filing a separate suit to block the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner on behalf of consumers.

We need the answers to important questions regarding how a mega-merger could manipulate the internet and should do whatever we can to protect Connecticut consumers. We should not be afraid to lead this fight.

_______________________________

Representative Derek Slap (D-West Hartford) is the Vice-Chair of the legislature's Energy and Technology Committee.  Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) is the Senate Majority Leader.  

PERSPECTIVE - Changing Minds and Changing Lives: The Measurable Business Benefits of Hiring People with Disabilities

by Kris Foss Nearly 40% of employers are having challenges hiring qualified employees, while at the same time one in five people in the United States have some type of disability and are facing challenges in getting hired.  Some disabilities are visible, such as physical disabilities, and some are hidden; including mental health conditions, medical conditions, learning and cognitive disabilities.  We also have a large population “aging into disability” for the first time and veterans with disabilities returning to the civilian workforce.

I am often asked about the types of jobs a person with a disability can do and my answer is always the same—“What do you have?”  The reality is that the talent pool of people with disabilities remains underutilized, even though it includes job seekers with a wide and diverse range of education, degrees, professional certifications, work experience and skills. 

Talent with disabilities brings alternative perspectives to getting a job done, to solving a problem, and to reaching a goal.  It is this unique perspective and life experiences that can contribute innovative ideas, processes and market reach.

Opportunity:  Market

People with disabilities in the United States alone represent an annual spending power of $645 billion, and their friends and families—those who would make spending decisions based on how inclusive and accessible a company may be, represent another $4 trillion in annual spending, according to the Return on Disability Group.

Opportunity: Talent

Hiring people with disabilities is not about charity, but about smart business.  Ranging across industries and business lines, our clients include some familiar brands such as PepsiCo, Synchrony Financial, American Express, Aon and Staples.  These companies and others are taking action to meet their talent needs across the board and seeing real business results including key HR metrics:

• An average 14% higher retention rate in the same roles;
• 33% decrease in interview to hire ratios, saving talent acquisition professionals valuable time while decreasing time to fill;
• 53 points and 28 points higher rates of voluntary “self-disclosure” among jobseekers with disabilities and veteran’s respectively—important compliance results for government contractors and reflecting a positive and inclusive corporate culture;

Diversity within Disability

People with disabilities cut across all dimensions of diversity and several areas of EEO reporting including:

• 35% Women
• 21% Veterans
• 19% Hispanic
• 36% White
• 42% Black

Making the Connection

Companies have several ways to connect with jobseekers with disabilities. Cultivating talent partnerships is an important part of creating strong talent pipelines in the community. Disability Solutions creates customized inclusive hiring strategies that forge these talent partnerships, or recruiters can take the following steps:

1. Conduct research within your geographic recruitment area. There can often be 50 to 75 community-based organizations in your area. It is important to start wide, in order to identify partners who can connect you with jobseekers who meet your particular talent needs.
2. Utilize those partnerships to increase your pipeline of talent through a variety of pre-application engagement activities. These can be onsite informational and training sessions, or simply a guide to help partners prepare their referrals prior to application.  This leads to qualified and work-ready candidates heading your way!
3. Post open positions on employment websites for people with disabilities such as the Disability Solutions online Career Center, disabilitysolutionstalent.org. It is a great way to begin building a new pipeline of talent. More than 400,000 people with disabilities visit the site every month to find a career.
4. Focus on talent acquisition and retention. Smart employers focus on developing talent. Provide natural supports, mentors, and ongoing training to develop the best employees and promote retention.

Growing Talent Competition

As the competition for top talent increases, leading companies are searching for new and valuable talent pools.  Those taking action in reaching talent with disabilities are recognizing measurable and meaningful business outcomes.  What type of jobs can a person with a disability do?  What have you got?

____________________________________

Kris Foss is the Managing Director of Disability Solutions at Ability Beyond, located in Bethel, Connecticut.  The consulting division of nonprofit Ability Beyond, Disability Solutions is CHANGING minds and CHANGING lives by creating customized plans for companies to strengthen their workforce by hiring and retaining talent with disabilities.   Their consultants have partnered with top companies to successfully fill talent gaps by attracting a historically under tapped talent pool – people with disabilities. 

PERSPECTIVE: Crying in the Cafeteria

by Ellen Fuller My teacher is crying in the cafeteria. The teacher who is over six feet tall and wears stylish black heeled boots and winged eyeliner and leather jackets with extraneous zippers everyday. The teacher who prances exuberantly in front of the classroom waving Julius Caesar and riling up the students into caring deeply about a play written hundreds of years ago. The teacher who snaps her gum to get your attention and grades papers with emoticons. She is crying into her hand as the social studies teacher wards off concerned and interested students.

Rumors spread, of course. We guess everything we think a 20-something-year-old middle school teacher could have to cry about – her boyfriend broke up with her, her pet died, she found out she is pregnant, a family member is sick, a student told her she was a bad teacher. If we had made a list of a thousand items from most likely to least likely, we still never would have guessed the truth. Seventh grade was a time when we never would have guessed that only a couple miles away, a man had killed 20 little babies. Seventh grade was the last time when a school shooting seemed a remote possibility.

There was talk of going home early, although none of the students knew why. Outside, there was no sign of snow. In the end, we stayed for the entire day, although the teachers, still the only ones in the building who knew the truth, just drifted through the remaining hours. Every teacher set boring tasks to be completed in silence, much to the complaints of the students. I know now why the teachers couldn’t bear to stand in front of us and act as though it were any other day. They were busy watching the door, their eyes sometimes drifting to cabinets and closets. They were busy wondering if they could protect us. If their quick thinking and altruism could be enough to stop the bullets of an AR-15 assault rifle.

I only heard about it at 2:50 p.m. on the bus ride home that day. My best friend had received a text from her mom, but none of us had been allowed to check our phones during school. I remember that she had to explain it to me several times. I asked questions like, “How many did he kill?” and “But how did he kill them?” And she gave me answers like, “I don’t know, my mom says about 20 and a couple teachers” and “With a gun.”

But those weren’t the answers I was really looking for. I didn’t want a death count. I wanted an estimate of the number of years of life lost. I wanted a numerical answer to how many times over the next 40 years their parents would stare into the smiling eyes of their 5-year-old’s school photo and try to imagine them with acne or facial hair or wedding dresses. I wanted a hypothesis at the number of prescriptions filled out for PTSD from the other students. I didn’t want to know the weapon. I wanted to know how he had come across it. I wanted to know how their lockdown drill had failed as naively as a duck-and-cover method from the atomic bomb.

I acted cool, of course. I was 45 miles away from Sandy Hook Elementary School, I was seven years older than the students killed, and I went to a school with only around 500 students. These numbers were a thin barrier between me and something unthinkable. There was no real reason that I was alive and these 26 people were dead. I callously shrugged it off because I was in seventh grade and I was trying to stay calm for my friends and I didn’t want to go to school thinking about it every day. I don’t think, at that point in my life, I ever expected our lawmakers to take the same apathetic stance.

My mom hugged me that afternoon, even though I was in the stage of life when hugging me was like hugging an extremely embarrassed prickly pear cactus. “Every parent across America should be hugging their child and telling them that they love them today,” my mom said. I returned the sentiment without much thought. I didn’t think how much those parents would pay to hear their child say “I love you” one more time or how the phantom feel of their baby’s chubby arms around their necks would haunt them.

Dec. 14, 2012, was a day of endings. The ending of lives and my own innocence. I learned that day that in our constitution, the Second Amendment – the right to own a gun – came before the First Amendment – the right to life; that my safety was dependent only on the whims of the adults around me; that my government cared more for the NRA than their own children.

From that day on, lockdown drills were never as much fun. Now, there is no giggling. We scrunch ourselves into tighter balls and, just like my seventh grade teachers, plan our escape. My last one, I hid under a grand piano with five of my best friends and we all trembled as the assistant principal checked the door. A lockdown drill is not a safety precaution; it is a memorial service. As the lights dim to nothing and the shades are drawn, we are all dressed in black. The loudspeaker blares like the officiant at a funeral: We are now going into lockdown. We bow our heads and imagine, for half-an-hour, how it must have felt to be a 5-year-old staring down the barrel of a gun. They never tell us if it is a drill.

This is the best protection the United States government can offer us: a piano canvas and our backpacks clutched to our chests. In school, the only lesson you ever need to learn is how to get really good at hide-and-seek.

There is another one now. Another “anomaly.” According to some estimates, it’s around the 18th “anomaly” this year. I wonder how many “anomalies” it will take before they admit it is a pattern. I hear about the latest shooting on the radio while passing through the kitchen. Now, five years after Sandy Hook, I am not confused. My first thought when I hear the word “school” on the news is “another one.” I am not shocked. I am a girl raised in a country where school shootings are a part of life. I am a girl desensitized to the massacre of children 50 minutes from my house. I am a girl who had her first kiss on a playground built in memory of a murdered 5-year-old. I am a girl like every other child in Connecticut who was in school on Dec. 14, 2012; ever since that day, we have all wondered “Why wasn’t it enough?” I am just a tiny part of the state that had a school shooting back when school shootings were still news.

I am a girl who is going to be a teacher. Teachers don’t take an oath to protect and serve, yet they are the front lines in a battle that America is losing. There isn’t a single teacher – or student – in America who hasn’t wondered what they would do in a school shooting. I’d be willing to bet that most of the teachers, administrators, and security guards around the country have come to the same grim conclusion: that there is a unspoken clause in their job description.

What do I want to be when I grow up? Anything but a statistic; anything but the mother of a dead child; anything but a human shield; anything but cannon fodder in defense of a murderer’s right to murder; anything but a teacher crying in the cafeteria.

___________________________________

Ellen Fuller is a senior at Hall High School in West Hartford and an aspiring writer.  This piece originally appeared on we-ha.com and is published here with permission.