PERSPECTIVE: Connecticut at the Start of this Decade

by M. Jodi Rell At the start of this decade, the beginning of her final year as Governor of Connecticut, M. Jodi Rell addressed a joint session of the House and Senate and delivered her State of the State address on February 3, 2010.   Her remarks that day:   

We gather today to mark the opening of the 2010 legislative session and we do so at a time of continued challenge, continued anxiety.

None of us need to be reminded of the unparalleled struggles that we have endured over the last 22 months.  Our nation has been in the grip of an economic crisis unlike any witnessed in generations.

The stark reality of our struggles is all too real.  Housing prices are down; unemployment is up.  The value of savings and retirement accounts are down; mortgage foreclosures are up.  The amount of debt at all levels of government is up.

Yes, the statistics are real – and our emotions are raw.  People are uncertain about the future.  They are frustrated and angry about the present.  And they have every right to be.

The people of Connecticut are looking to us to help them.  They are looking to us to lead.  They are looking to us to right our ship of state.

They don’t want to hear shallow lamentations of sympathy or understanding from their elected officials. They want action and assistance.  And they want an end to the theatrical histrionics of political press conferences and partisan pinball.  They want us to act like adults.

President Obama spoke eloquently about this last week in his State of the Union address.  He spoke of the nature and nastiness of politics in our nation’s capital.  Frankly, he could have been speaking of our own State Capitol here in Hartford.

I will echo his sentiment and be a bit more blunt:  we need to stop the game-playing and name-calling and constant bickering that has come to consume too many at the Capitol.   There is no room for such pettiness on the playground; there certainly shouldn’t be in the Legislature, the Governor’s Office or the courts either.

None of us are blameless in this regard.  All of us must accept our responsibilities to treat one another with respect and to listen, truly listen, to those whose views or proposals or policies may differ from our own.

In the end we may not agree with one another, but we should respect one another.  We need not speak glowingly of each other or of each other’s ideas, but we must speak civilly.  Let us replace acrimony with accommodation, let us set aside the difficulties and divisions of the last year and commit ourselves, truly commit ourselves, to working with one another.

For we have much to do – and our work begins in earnest today.

Thousands of trees will be felled for the hundreds of bills that will be filed on dozens of topics.  But our efforts, our energies, this session should be focused on just two core issues: creating jobs and balancing our state budget.

Too many people have lost their jobs and a lost job means a lost paycheck, lost security, lost dignity and lost hope for the future.  Families across our state are hurting and suffering and struggling.

We need to get to work to put the people of Connecticut back to work.  Today I am announcing new proposals that will allow us to spur job creation now and chart a course of economic vitality and growth for years to come.   The most critical problem facing businesses today, particularly the small and medium businesses that are our main engines of growth, is credit availability.  Employers need loans and financing to buy equipment and inventory, expand space or just to meet daily cash flow demands.   As we all know the credit crunch has crippled a great many employers.  Financing that was readily available in years past is difficult, if not impossible, to find.

This is a national problem but we need to find a Connecticut solution to it.

I am calling for the creation of the new Connecticut Credit Consortium - a $500 million dollar partnership between the state --and Connecticut banks to substantially boost credit availability. I propose canceling $100 million in old bond authorizations and instead use the funds for the Consortium.  Our $100 million dollars will leverage at least $400 million dollars from banks all across our state. That’s $500 million that will immediately be put to work to help businesses save and create jobs.  And here’s one key provision: $25 million of the state’s $100 million will be targeted strictly for small businesses for micro or small loans.

As I have said before, small businesses are the chief job creators.  That is not in dispute.  And neither is their need for credit.  Their lifeline is credit – and that lifeline has been cut off.

Work with me to open up that lifeline to create jobs and pass into law the Connecticut Credit Consortium.  I also ask you to help in passing other proposals I am offering to reinvigorate our economy and create jobs.

The first one modifies the relatively new, but little used job creation tax credit.  It was aimed at large corporations but they are not availing themselves of it.  So I am proposing that we change it to benefit small businesses with twenty-five or fewer employees.

Because most small business are limited liability corporations - LLCs - and S corps, we will, under my proposal, allow, for the first time, a credit against an employer’s personal income tax liability.  The credit will be for $2,500 per year for three years for each new job created.  $10 million dollars is already in the budget for this proposal – and up to 4,000 new jobs could be created this year alone.

One area where we see a large number of new start-ups of small businesses is in green technology and clean, renewable energy.  Kermit the Frog had it wrong all these years, I’m afraid.  It is easy to be green.  Solar, fuel cells, wind turbines and geothermal – all hold the keys to economic and energy prosperity.

That is why I am proposing that we expand our sales tax exemption to include machines, equipment, tools, materials, supplies and fuels used in the renewable energy and green technology.

This is in addition to the work of my Electric Vehicle Council that is preparing the way for green business opportunities for the arrival of zero-emission, electric vehicles.  And there’s one more component we still need to address – and it’s a critically important component: our workforce.

We are recognized around the nation for the high quality and talent of our workforce.  The best and brightest are found right here in Connecticut.  But we need to do more to keep them here.  We want our children to be educated here and start their work life here and then raise their own families here.

And our companies will only succeed if they have the qualified, trained employees they need.  That is why I am proposing a new loan forgiveness program for students who stay and work in Connecticut after they graduate from college with a degree or certificate in green technology, renewable energy, life sciences or health information technology.

They will receive a $2,500 annual forgiveness for each of four years if they have a baccalaureate or higher degree or $2,500 a year for two years with an associate degree.  Join me into making this loan forgiveness program a reality.

And there’s something we can do – must do - for all businesses and for all of our citizens:  bring certainty and sanity to our state’s fiscal situation.  The protracted discussions and negotiations, along with the fevered partisan debate that characterized last year’s budget, cannot be repeated.  It was hardly state government’s finest moment.

Today marks a new session, a new start and a new effort to work together to honestly confront the undeniable realities of shrinking revenues and ever-rising costs.  A little more than seven months into a two year budget and we are already facing a $500 million dollar plus deficit.  A deficit due in large part to drastic reductions in the collection of the income tax and sales tax.  Why?  Because if you do not have a job you do not have any income on which to pay tax and you have no money to spend on items that carry a sales tax.  We have 94,000 people in this state who have lost their jobs since the recession began in March, 2008.   94,000.

The recovery will be long and painfully slow and there will be a "new normal" when it does take full effect.  We in state government need a "new normal" as well.  Because we have a state government that has outgrown the ability of our citizens to pay for it.  We need to recognize that not every service, not every program, not every function is absolutely essential.  We need to acknowledge that higher taxes are not the solution to our problems.

It’s common sense:  the taxes we already have on our books are not bringing in the revenue we thought they would, so why would new and higher taxes be the answer??  They’re not.

So I say no.  No on behalf of the 94,000 people who have lost their jobs.  No, on behalf of the businesses that are struggling to keep their doors open.  No, on behalf of all the families who struggle to make ends meet day in and day out.   We do need to say yes to some basic structural reforms, however.

People look at Washington and the spending spree they have been on of late.  They see weekly stories about borrowing a few hundred billion for this, a few hundred billion for that… and they react with horror.  They worry about the bill that will be handed to their children and grandchildren for all that borrowing.  We have our own concerns here in Connecticut since we have one of the highest debt rates in the country.  That’s why it is so critical that we tackle this year’s deficit head-on and honestly deal with it, not borrow to cover it.

I am proposing that we put into place a new protection: any bond authorization that has been on the books for five years or more without being allocated by the State Bond Commission will automatically be canceled.  We have billions and billions of dollars of bonds that have been authorized by the legislature over the years.  Some, are for worthwhile statewide needs; many are not.  But all could bankrupt us and all are counted by credit rating agencies as liabilities.   If a project is not worthy enough to be approved after five or more years then we probably shouldn't bond for it and pay twenty years of interest on it.

And there is another financial Sword of Damocles hanging over the state’s head that we literally can no longer afford to ignore:  our unfunded state employee pension liabilities and unfunded retiree health care costs.  The tab for our unfunded pension liabilities is a staggering $9.3 billion.  The price tag for health care benefits for retired state employees is an almost incomprehensible $24.6 billion.  This mounting debt has been virtually ignored for decades. Ignorance may be bliss, according to the old adage, but that bliss carries a price - too high a price.

For that reason I am establishing a working group, with representatives from the Treasurer’s and Comptroller’s Offices, OPM, SEBAC, accountants, actuaries and others to propose short and long term plans for addressing our unfunded liabilities. Their first report will be due by July 1st.  I am also offering a proposal today that  contains an automatic requirement that half of any budget surplus declared by the Comptroller in her January or May report be automatically deposited into the state’s Rainy Day Fund.

When I was sworn in as Governor on July 1, 2004 our Rainy Day Fund had a zero balance.  Zero.  I made it a priority to restore the fund, the state’s nest egg, and working with you, it was filled to its largest balance ever by 2008 – nearly $1.4 billion.  I am proud of that effort.  And it’s a good thing that we took that action because we are now in the midst of our "Rainy Day" – we’re using all of the Fund’s assets this year and next to balance our state budget.

But the Rainy Day Fund is a tempting, too tempting, target.  There is never a shortage of people who enjoy spending money and never a dearth of people who are asking for it.  Each dollar of surplus spent is one dollar less that can go into the Rainy Day Fund.  So, let’s reduce temptation and ensure that half of any surplus declared in January or May be automatically deposited into the Fund.  No diversions.  No short-sighted thinking.  No excuses.

We need to pass these proposals and to act now -- because the outlook for the future is fiscally challenging, to say the least.  Early revenue shortfall projections for the outyears are in the billions of dollars.

The Rainy Day Fund will be empty.  Federal stimulus grants will be gone.  All our outside funds will have been swept. And yet employee, insurance, heating, fuel and other costs will continue to increase appreciably.  Quite frankly, the dire circumstances we are facing today will pale in comparison to the challenges that will face the next Governor, the next Legislature.

Every action that we take this year, to finally get state spending under control will ease the budget pain that all will be feeling for the next few years.

So let me be clear about this:  I intend to do everything in my power in my remaining months in office to make the changes that are needed to break insatiable spending habits and to make state government affordable once again.

It would not be fair to my successor – or yours -  to simply ignore the fiscal problems that we have today and that we all know lie just ahead.  We must deal with our current problems this session and develop a plan of action for new leadership next session.

So today I am proposing something rather unique – and rather necessary.  Something that will build upon the important work begun by my administration and the legislature in streamlining state government.  I am calling for the establishment of a 24-member commission to examine our government, top to bottom, to achieve efficiencies, eliminate redundancies and waste and reduce the size and cost of state government.

Every institution, every structure, service, program and delivery mechanism will be evaluated.  And it will be done in a non-partisan manner by all 3 branches of government.  Six members will be appointed by me to represent the executive branch.  Six will be appointed by the Chief Justice to represent the judicial branch, and six each will be appointed by the Democratic and Republican leadership of the Legislature.  There will be three chairs, one from each branch of government. The commission will have until August 30th to conduct their work, the nature of which is clearly spelled out in my legislation.  It includes:  agency mergers or eliminations; administrative overhead; outdated functions or services and better utilization of information technology.  That’s step one.

Step two is a separate four-person board which is established on September 1st.  So as to take the politics out of the equation, all branches and both sides of the political aisle are again equally represented.  They will review the work and recommendations of the commission.  They will also hold hearings and automatically accept those recommendations unless 3 out of 4 members vote to amend or reject any specific recommendation.  Their work must be concluded by December 1st.  Those recommendations that are administrative in nature will be implemented by the Governor or Chief Justice, as appropriate.  The Legislature will have 45 days once the regular session starts next January to vote on the final recommendations – without amendment.

And every step taken will be done in open session, with all documents, phone calls, meeting notes and correspondence open for public inspection.  The timeline is tight because we want the recommendations ready for the next Governor, the next Legislature.  They will need the recommendations to grapple with the great fiscal challenges we will face.  We owe it to them – and to those who pay for our government – our taxpayers – and those who are served by our government.  Let the creation of this commission be one of the first bills you act upon so that its work can begin immediately.

And act quickly to fix and preserve the public financing law that so many of us championed and that takes special interest money out of campaigns.  Dozens and dozens of candidates are running right now under one set of rules.  It is very likely they may find themselves running under another set if we lose our court appeal.

Don’t let us return to the ways of the past.  We have cleaned up government and we have cleaned up campaigns.  Help me keep them clean. Act. Lead.  I'm not scolding. I'm not lecturing. I'm beseeching you: Act. Lead --

On campaign finance reform, job creation and balancing the state budget.   Those are the areas I have focused on and most of my proposals are paid for with existing funds.  This is not the year for a panoply of expensive new proposals on a wide range of issues.  We cannot afford them and the public is not crying out for them.

They want us to fix our economy, fix our state budget, jumpstart job creation and then stay out of their pockets as they start earning paychecks again.  And they want us to do this while engaging, not fighting, one another.   It’s not too much for them to ask.  They put their trust in us – their public trust by electing us to office.

I am honored by that trust and I am proud to be the 87th Governor of this great state.  I am proud of all that has been accomplished since I became Governor.   Ethics and campaign finance reform.  Civil unions. The Charter Oak program for the uninsured.  A new hospital at our veterans’ home. New charter and magnet schools.  Hundreds of new and refurbished rail cars, updated rail stations and new buses. Thousands of acres of farmland and open space preserved. Dozens of dairy farmers kept in business. College campuses that have been transformed. The list goes on – and it will be added to before I leave office next January.

There is no time for reflection, however, for much work remains ahead, and much history is yet to be written.  You know, 2010 marks the 375th year of our great state.  We are planning a number of festivities to celebrate all the people and events that have made Connecticut such a special place.

375 years of incredible history, with remarkable people and achievements.   We begin the next chapter, the next 375 years of our history, today.   I foresee a bright future for our state, but we must first meet the many challenges of today.  We will continue to lead the nation in commerce, science, education, culture and so much more.   We will rebuild our economy.  We will create jobs.  And we will put our state back on firm financial footing if we work hard and confront our problems with courage and common sense.

Our foundations are strong, our commitment resolute. The State of our State is challenged but hopeful.   Extraordinary times call upon us to do our best.  To accept challenges and triumph over them.  And triumph we shall, if we work together, with respect and civility.

Before I conclude I would ask that we keep in mind some of our state’s newest heroes – the more than 600 members of the CT National Guard, who are heading to Afghanistan this week, for their deployment to that dangerous country.  They are part of the largest deployment of Connecticut soldiers to ever serve overseas.  I ask that you keep them and their families in your hearts and in your prayers.

I thank you for the honor of serving as your Governor and I ask you to join me as I say:  God Bless the Great State of Connecticut.

____________________________

M. Jodi Rell served as a State Representative (1985-1995), Lieutenant Governor (1995-2004) and Governor of Connecticut (2004-2011).  She was the second woman and first Republican woman to serve as governor of the state. 

PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Owner Does Not Equal Entrepreneur, And That’s Okay

by Anthony Price My universe was shaken to its foundation, like a building crumbling to the ground under the force of a 9.0 earthquake, after reading Ben Lamm’s guest column in Entrepreneur magazine: “Stop Calling Everyone an Entrepreneur—They Aren’t.”

I thought this was typical Silicon Valley propaganda, from a hotshot in a hoodie and jeans. But after my less-skeptical self emerged, I began to think there was merit to what Ben was espousing. Ben, the founder of several companies and CEO of a startup, believes that the “entrepreneur” label has become as ubiquitous as Nikes on NBA-wannabes. He says that a lot more people are qualified to manage a “Jamba Juice than take companies from inception, through market traction (paying customers), funding, growth and eventual IPO or exit.”

I full-heartedly agree. Ben comes from a world where solving big “hair-on-fire” problems and scaling a business as fast as possible are crucial to owning a market and attracting OPM: Other People’s Money. This business template requires a steady stream of capital to be pumped into the business as fuel, which most businesses don’t have.

The money that your small business burns through is yours, or if you are lucky, your family’s, friend’s or the bank’s. In reality, a startup business has a limited amount of time to build a business with paying customers, or it will fail. Think of Chobani yogurt in your refrigerator—it’s expiration date is a constant reminder that it will not last forever.

The pressure comes from investors. When you play with OPM, investors are the house, they make the rules, and they want to make lots of money (10, 20, or 30x return or more) from a liquidity event (an exit from your business within five to seven years as a result of selling or going public).  In Ben’s view, the mission is the domination of an industry from the playbooks of Facebook, Google and Amazon.

Entrepreneurs Take Big Risks

Entrepreneurs view problems from a unique perspective. George Bernard Shaw, the playwright, said, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Entrepreneurs are the unreasonable men (and women), risk-takers, but not gamblers. To them, gambling is working at a job they don’t like, with no future for advancement, for a boss who doesn’t value them. Entrepreneurs are confident in their abilities to solve big problems, assemble a team and scale. They are a special group of people who believe in their vision, talent, version of reality and work ethic.

The biggest differentiator between an entrepreneur and a small-business owner is that the former wants to solve big problems, grow quickly and takes huge risks. Think Facebook, Google, and Tesla. Facebook has over two billion monthly users, and its mission is: “Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” Google is the most visited website on the Internet. Its mission is: “To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Founded in 2003, Tesla Motor’s mission is: “To accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.”

Small and Powerful

A business consists of coordinated activities that deliver value to customers with the intent of generating a profit to its owners. There are twenty-nine million small businesses in the U.S., which represent 99.9 percent of all businesses.

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as having fewer than 500 employees; organized for profit; has a place of business in the U.S.; operates primarily in the U.S.; is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field on a national basis. Michael Gerber, the author of The E-Myth states, “There is a myth in this country—I call it the E-Myth—which says that small businesses are started by entrepreneurs risking capital to make a profit. This is simply not so.”

Most small business owners make the misguided assumption that because they know the technical work of the business, they understand the business that does the technical work.  These are two different things, just as being a home baker doesn’t make one competent to run a neighborhood bakery or a corporate chain of bakeries.  Small business owner does not equal entrepreneur.

Compare Ben Lamm’s vision of a startup business on steroids with how most small businesses start. Look at your favorite small business. For example, the guy (Jim) who owns the automobile repair garage down the street probably started because he either worked in the family business or got tired of working for someone else. Jim doesn’t have a grand vision to be as ubiquitous as Pep Boys. Sure, he wants to make money, but the love of his craft, freedom from a boss, quality of life, and a sense that he can shape his destiny are all reasons that usually motivate someone to start or buy a business.

Just Do It

Customers determine winners in business. But a decisive factor for your future success comes down to how you answer this question: Will you be an entrepreneur or a small-business owner? Entrepreneurs take big risks to create something new, while small-business owners provide goods and services that the market needs right now. Each has its own value.

Life as a small-business owner is appealing. There’s no disputing its impact on the American psyche. In our winner-take-all society, we need balance between big-risk takers and steady small businesses. Ben states, “Entrepreneurs, at their core, are rare, transformative and risky. They are going to propel the society forward with big leaps of creative disruption. Small-business owners give us a stable base that de-risks the moonshots and protects us from the fallout of failures.” Our economy needs both the entrepreneur and the small-business owner.

To succeed in business, you have to know whether you’re playing as an entrepreneur who is ready to change the game, the industry, the world, or as a small-business owner seeking to make an impact on a smaller scale. If you’re trying to change the game, put on a pair of Shaquille O’Neal’s size 22, because that’s what changing the game feels like. Your choice whether to be an entrepreneur or small-business owner will affect how you start, fund, manage, and grow your business.

Takeaway: Decide what you will be. Choose one.

__________________________________

This is an edited excerpt from Get the Loot and Run: Find Money for Your Business, by Anthony Price of Hartford.  Price is founder and CEO of Lootscout, and an entrepreneur, speaker, panelist, and judge for business competitions. A trusted adviser to startups and growing businesses, his expertise is sourcing growth capital for entrepreneurs. This excerpt is published with permission of the author.

PERSPECTIVE: Dyslexia and Persistence Can Be Route to Achievement

Dan Malloy overcame tremendous challenges to build a successful career in public service and law. Born with severe dyslexia and motor-control problems, he was unable to walk steadily or to execute simple tasks like tying his shoes and buttoning his clothes. As a young student, Malloy couldn’t read, spell, or do mathematical problems. But his mother, a public-health nurse, didn’t buy into the idea that her son was slow, says Malloy. “She made a definitive decision to stress the things that I was good at and not bother with the things I wasn’t good at. My mother pushed me to develop my strengths, to focus on my leadership and oral-communications skills. Concentrating on those skills, which were my strengths, helped me meet the challenges of college, law school, and my career.”

Malloy’s mother also encouraged his listening skills by giving him a radio, so he went to bed each night tuned in to the news and other programs. At school, he found little encouragement. One of his teachers labeled him “mentally retarded” as a fourth grader; another hung his failed spelling tests on the wall beside those of “A” students. “It’s a tribute to my mother that I never envisioned that I wouldn’t be successful; I just didn’t know how I’d do it,” he says.

By the end of fifth grade, Malloy could button his clothes and tie his shoes, and by eighth grade, he was a much-improved reader. “I developed some compensatory skills and had halfway decent grades,”€ he says. “I also had a good level of academic success in high school and remembered everything I read, although reading was still arduous.” Luckily, Malloy attended a supportive high school, which waived the foreign language requirement and any math class beyond Algebra I, in which he scored a D. “That allowed me to take courses I was good at, like social studies and history,” says Malloy, who also had access to books on tape.

“The real point where my future was decided was when I had a serious injury in high school,”€ says Malloy. Sidelined by a compressed vertebra during football practice, he ended up in pancreatic failure as a result of undiagnosed ulcers. He lost sixty pounds and was not expected to live, until an advanced X-ray machine detected the ulcers and put him on the road to recovery” and to thoughts of college. Early in 1974, he wrote a candid letter to several colleges. “I told them that I almost died and that I had learning disabilities, and I asked them to take a look at me. I was lucky some schools were willing to take a chance on me,” says Malloy, who describes his SAT scores as “abysmal.”

Another byproduct of his dyslexia is Malloy's ability to listen and absorb information, an asset to anyone, but especially to a candidate for public office. At Boston College, his reading skills improved steadily, and his reading retention and comprehension were “off the charts,” says Malloy. “I got very good grades and the school was behind me.” His professors granted him extra time on multiple-choice tests and allowed him to answer essay questions orally or to dictate them to a third person.

He also wrote papers orally, dictating them to his future wife, Cathy, whom he met as a freshman. While Malloy is a fluent reader, reading aloud is difficult, so he plans speeches in his head and delivers them without consulting a written text. Another byproduct of his dyslexia is Malloy’s ability to listen well and absorb large amounts of information, an asset to anyone, but especially to a candidate for public office.

These assets certainly paid off in the November 2010 Connecticut gubernatorial election. In a tight race, Dan Malloy edged out his opponent to take the seat as Connecticut’s 88th governor. He was sworn into office on January 5, 2011. [He will have served two terms when he leaves office in January 2019.]

___________________________

This perspective appears on the website of The Yale Center for Dyslexia & Creativity (YCDC).  YCDC is a source of research, advocacy and resources to help those with dyslexia reach their full potential. Dyslexia is defined as an unexpected difficulty in learning to read. Dyslexia takes away an individual’s ability to read quickly and automatically, and to retrieve spoken words easily, but it does not dampen their creativity and ingenuity.

The Center’s tools and resources are used widely by parents, educators and those with dyslexia to advocate for greater recognition and support for dyslexic children and adults. YCDC builds awareness in all communities and mobilizes grassroots efforts to close the reading-achievement gap for all students.

The Center also showcases the success stories of adults with dyslexia, including writers, scientists, celebrities, and government and business leaders.  Malloy is one of two current Governors featured on the YCDC website.  The other is John Hickenlooper of Colorado, a graduate of Wesleyan University in Middletown.  California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, now a candidate for Governor, and former Connecticut Congressman Sam Gejdenson are also among the political leaders profiled.

It was recently announced that Gov. Malloy will be a visiting professor at the Boston College Law School in 2019. 

PERSPECTIVE: Clearing A Path to Better Health

by Arielle Levin Becker Hartford’s Northeast neighborhood is about four miles from West Hartford Center. Yet living in one place or the other can mean a 15-year difference in life expectancy.

That’s according to recently released data that identifies the life expectancy for nearly every census tract in the country, offering a stark illustration of the disparities that exist even between neighborhoods in the same city or region.

In Northeast Hartford, the life expectancy of 68.9 years is more than 11 years below the average life expectancy in Connecticut – 80.8 years. West Hartford Center tops that, at 84.6 years.

Similar patterns hold true across the state. There’s a nearly 14-year life expectancy gap between parts of Bridgeport and neighboring Fairfield. A baby born in Westport has a life expectancy that’s more than 20 years longer than a baby born in Northeast Hartford.

There is variation within cities and towns. In New Haven’s Newhallville neighborhood, life expectancy is 71.7 years. In the neighborhood next door, Prospect Hill, life expectancy is more than a decade longer: 82.3 years.

Depending on the neighborhood, life expectancy in New London ranges from 69.8 years to 83.3 years (a 13.5-year difference), while in Norwalk, it ranges from 76.3 years to 87.9 years (11.6 years). Life expectancy in Torrington ranges from 71.6 years to 85.6 years – a 14-year gap.

The data comes from the United States Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimate Project, an effort of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems, and the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The numbers are estimates of average life expectancy at birth for 2010 to 2015 – that is, how long, on average, a person can expect to live.

“It is truly unsettling to see how small differences in geography yield vast differences in health and longevity. In some places, access to healthy food, stable jobs, housing that is safe and affordable, quality education, and smoke-free environments are plentiful. In others, they are severely limited,” Donald F. Schwarz, senior vice president, program at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, wrote in a recent blog post. “Data can help us better understand the health disparities across our communities and provide a clearer picture of the biggest health challenges and opportunities we experience.”

All of this new data is consistent with a longstanding challenge in health in Connecticut: While Connecticut is among the healthiest states in the country, there are significant disparities in health outcomes by race and ethnicity – a sign that not everyone has the opportunity to be as healthy as possible.

Here are three examples:

• Babies born to black women in Connecticut are nearly three times as likely to die before turning 1 as babies born to white women, while among Hispanic mothers, babies are twice as likely to die in their first year.
• The rate of cancer deaths among black Connecticut residents was 9 percent higher than among white residents in 2016 – even though black residents were far less likely to be diagnosed with cancer.
• Hispanics in Connecticut were twice as likely to be uninsured than white state residents in 2016.

At the Connecticut Health Foundation, our work is centered on eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities and assuring that all Connecticut residents have access to affordable and high-quality care. We focus on ensuring that all state residents have access to health care coverage and a regular source of health care, as well as ensuring that the health care people receive is high-quality and connected to the many non-clinical factors that affect health.

The strategies that can help to eliminate health disparities will benefit everyone. They can also help move Connecticut closer to our vision of a state in which everyone – regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status – has the opportunity to be as healthy as possible.

_________________________

Arielle Levin Becker is Communications Director for the Connecticut Health Foundation, which focuses on improving health outcomes for people of color and ensuring that all Connecticut residents have access to affordable and high-quality care. Through public policy, grantmaking, and leadership development, the Connecticut Health Foundation works to make lasting changes that improve lives.

PERSPECTIVE: A Needed Credential to Advance Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health

by Abby Alter and Heidi Maderia Professionals who care for young children play an important role in promoting social-emotional development, positive mental health, and relational health, as well as identifying problems early and connecting young children to intervention and treatment services when necessary. Unfortunately, most pre-professional education and training programs lack specific courses or modules related to infant and toddler mental health, and many professionals lack the critical skills needed to work with very young children.

Many states, including Connecticut, are taking steps to ensure that professionals working with infants, toddlers, and their families are well-trained to promote optimal mental health, promote preventive strategies, and facilitate linkage to early intervention or treatment.

Attention to the Mental Health of Young Children is Critical for their Healthy Development

Infant and early childhood mental health is defined as a young child’s capacity to regulate and express emotions, form close and secure relationships, safely explore their environment, and learn. Young children develop these capabilities within the context of their family, environment, community, and culture, as well as through relationships with their primary caregivers. Infants and toddlers who develop healthy and strong social and emotional competency are better prepared for school and have healthier and more prosperous lifelong outcomes.

A System of Professional Endorsement is Improving Connecticut’s Workforce

The Connecticut Association for Infant Mental Health (CT-AIMH) purchased a license in 2010 from the Michigan Association of Infant Mental Health to provide the Endorsement for Culturally Sensitive, Relationship-Focused Practice Promoting Infant Mental Health®. The license was purchased with support from the Children’s Fund of Connecticut, the Connecticut Head Start State Collaborative Office, and others. Since obtaining the license, CT-AIMH has built a statewide competency system known as the CT-AIMH Endorsement® for providers caring for children up to age 3. The system provides professional development through training and education programs with a goal of building a more skilled workforce.  In 2017, with help and guidance from a national workgroup, the endorsement system was expanded to include professionals working with children from 3 to age 6.

Becoming endorsed demonstrates that an individual has completed specialized education, related work, in-service training, and reflective supervision/consultation experiences that have led to competency in the promotion and/or practice of infant or early childhood mental health. The credential does not replace licensure or certification, but is meant as evidence of a specialization in the promotion and practice of infant and/or early childhood mental health within each professional field, such as child development, early care and education, pediatrics, psychiatry, psychology, social work, and others. To date, 56 professionals in Connecticut are endorsed in Infant Mental Health through this system, and three providers have earned the Early Childhood Mental Health Endorsement® (currently in its pilot phase). CT-AIMH plans to revise the endorsement program based on lessons learned during this pilot, and offer the Early Childhood Mental Health Endorsement® to professionals in 2019.

Additional Measures to Build a More Competent Infant and Early Childhood Workforce

Connecticut agencies and stakeholders have taken several steps to build a more competent infant and early childhood workforce. Examples include: increasing support for reflective supervision/consultation groups in Birth to Three and home visiting programs; committing to having at least one endorsed infant mental health professional on staff for every Birth to Three operated program; and providing a bi-annual infant mental health training series for child welfare and Head Start staff through a partnership with Head Start, the Department of Children and Families, and CT-AIMH.

While these measures are expanding the capacity of the early childhood workforce in Connecticut to address the social and emotional needs of young children, more can and should be done. Recommendations for Connecticut include:

• Increase public funding to support endorsement activities, including funding for: infant and early childhood mental health training, release time for staff to attend training, reflective supervision/consultation, deployment of a university-level cross-discipline Faculty Infant Mental Health Training Institute with accompanying materials.
• Ensure that all State and/or public agencies serving the most vulnerable children and their families have infant/early childhood mental health endorsed staff in every region.
• Follow Michigan’s practice requiring Endorsement® in infant and early childhood mental health for practitioners who bill Medicaid for mental health services provided to infants and toddlers. Additionally, Medicaid and commercial insurers should pay for infant and early childhood mental health services delivered to young children birth to 6 years who show signs of risk (without a diagnosis) if delivered by a professional holding the Endorsement.
• Require state institutions of higher education to include infant and early childhood mental health competencies in their infant, young child, and family related courses (e.g., nursing, social work, education, psychology) and/or support an Endorsement requirement to develop a pipeline of professionals who can pursue endorsement within their careers. Use the Faculty Infant Mental Health Training Institute to help faculty across disciplines to incorporate infant mental health into existing courses.

These additional actions can advance and sustain a statewide system of professionals who are endorsed and credentialed in infant and early childhood mental health. In that way, we can best promote optimal mental health and preventive strategies, and facilitate, as needed, early intervention or treatment.

_____________________________

Abby Alter is Senior Associate for Early Childhood Initiatives at the Child Health and Development Institute, and Heidi Maderia is Executive Director of the Connecticut Association for Infant Mental Health. To learn more, visit www.ct-aimh.org or read "The Infant Mental Health Workforce: Key to Promoting the Healthy Social and Emotional Development of Children."  This article was adapted from an Issue Brief developed for Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut, Inc, a catalyst for improving the health, mental health and early care systems for children in Connecticut.

PERSPECTIVE: Legalizing Marijuana Would Jeopardize Safety on Connecticut Roads

By Amy Parmenter A poll by AAA of almost a thousand drivers across Connecticut found earlier this year that 50 percent do not support the legalization of recreational marijuana. Of younger respondents (ages 18-24) opposed to legalization, 40 percent expressed ‘concern that marijuana is a national public health issue’.

As the advocacy organization for all motorists, AAA opposes the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes because of a broad range of traffic safety concerns including, but not limited to, the following three factors detailed in the testimony below:

• A significant increase in drugged driving and marijuana-involved fatal crashes
• An inability to simply and accurately measure impairment
• The complexities and challenges legalization would present to law enforcement, our courts and state agencies

Increase in Drugged Driving and Marijuana-involved Fatal Crashes

Recent research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that in the year following the legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington State, the number of drivers in fatal crashes who had recently used Marijuana more than doubled.

We know drugged driving, and driving under the influence of marijuana in particular, is on the rise across the country.

According to a 2013-2014 survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), drug use among nighttime weekend drivers increased 25 percent since the previous study in 2007. The drug showing the greatest spike was marijuana, with an increase of almost 50 percent.

This trend is particularly disturbing among our younger drivers.

A AAA poll conducted in 2016 found that, of those between the ages of 18-29, almost 25 percent admitted that within the past year they ‘regularly’ or ‘fairly often’ drove after using marijuana – whereas only about 15 percent admitted to driving drunk during the same time frame.

Inability to Accurately Measure Impairment

While there is the understandable temptation to measure impairment by alcohol and marijuana in the same way, it cannot be done.

Unlike with alcohol, the amount of active THC (the psycho-active ingredient in marijuana) in the blood has NO scientific correlation with a driver’s level of impairment or propensity to crash. Active-THC, is fat soluble and is metabolized differently than alcohol, which is water soluble. To accurately predict driver impairment or crash risk as a function of how much active-THC a person has in their body would require us to measure how much of the drug is in the fatty tissue of the brain—not the blood.

While roadside drug tests may soon be available, even the most accurate of these tests will be of no use in determining impairment. They will only show the presence of THC in the blood.

Challenges to Law Enforcement and Courts 

Because of the inability to accurately determine impairment at the roadside as described above, law enforcement and the court system face unique challenges and complexities when it comes to marijuana that do not exist for alcohol.

One of the most common ways lawmakers in marijuana states have attempted to address traffic safety concerns is to establish an impairment threshold for marijuana, a ‘per se’ standard for it, (similar to the 0.08 BAC standards in every state for alcohol).

After analyzing data from nine states, the AAA Foundation published a report last year in which researchers concluded that ‘to establish a per se standard for marijuana is meaningless as a tool to address impaired driving’.

Additional considerations:

• This is not the marijuana of previous generations. The concentration of the impairing chemicals in most marijuana range from 25-30% in plant form – 10 TIMES as much as in the 70's and 80's.
• There have been two systematic reviews of multiple studies on the impact of marijuana on driving. Both determined that, conservatively, marijuana at least doubles the risk of causing a traffic crash.

It has taken many years to change attitudes about drinking and driving, and we must now begin the same process of educating the public about drugged driving.

Legalizing marijuana before we are prepared to manage the potential highway safety consequences, before we have prepared our law enforcement officers with all the training and resources they need to address this issue, endangers the Public Health of our state.

While some people are focused on revenue to be generated, AAA is focused on traffic safety and the unintended consequences of legalization, for which we believe Connecticut and other states are ill-prepared.

Legalization of marijuana will, without question, increase the number of people who use it and get behind the wheel and drive. That puts all of us at greater risk on the road.

______________________________

Amy Parmenter is Manager of Public and Government Affairs for the AAA Allied Group.  This was provided as testimony to the state legislature’s General Law Committee during the 2018 session, when the legislature was considering a proposal to legalize marijuana in Connecticut. It is on behalf of both AAA clubs in Connecticut, the AAA Allied Group and AAA Northeast, which together represent more than a million members.

PERSPECTIVE: Unhealthy Options Persist in Fast Food; Voluntary Efforts Falling Short

Fast-food consumption is associated with poor diet quality in youth. Therefore, improving the nutritional quality of fast-food meals consumed by children is an important public health objective. In response to public health concerns, several of the largest fast-food restaurants have introduced policies to offer healthier drinks and/or sides with their kids’ meals. However, few research studies have examined the menu items that parents purchase for their children at fast-food restaurants or their attitudes about healthier kids’ meal offerings.

The primary purpose of [a study by the UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity] was to document parents’ reported fast-food purchases for their children (ages 2-11) and examine changes over time.  [The] findings indicate numerous reasons for continued concern about the impact of fast-food consumption on children’s diets and health.

In 2016, we identified 10 different fast-food restaurants where at least one-quarter of parents reported that they purchased food for their child(ren) weekly or more often. In addition, more than 90% of parents surveyed reported that they visited at least one of the four largest fast-food restaurants to purchase lunch or dinner for their child (ages 2-11) in the past week, and they purchased food for their child at 2.4 of these restaurants on average.

These numbers are high, but they correspond to previous research showing that on any given day, one-third of children consume fast-food… Furthermore, parents’ purchases of fast-food for their children increased significantly during the years examined, with parents reporting increased frequency of visits to most individual fast-food restaurants from 2013 to 2016…

These results also suggest that healthier kids’ meal policies could result in unintended public health consequences if they lead parents to view the restaurants more positively and increase their visits, but continue to order the unhealthy items for their child.

These findings indicate numerous opportunities for restaurants to enhance their efforts to improve the nutritional quality of fast-food consumed by children.

First, restaurants should introduce healthier kids’ meals that are also appropriate and appealing to older children… In addition, restaurants must discontinue the increasingly common practice of offering unhealthy sides together with healthier sides, and/or they should remove unhealthy sides from their kids’ meal menus altogether, as they have pledged to do with kids’ meal drinks…

Finally, since parents often choose restaurants that are convenient and that their kids like (more than for healthy options), restaurants should make the healthier items the most appealing options for children to choose. They should also make the healthier items the easiest options for parents to order, for example, by making them the default for kids’ meals. Given parents’ positive attitudes about healthier kids’ meals, there appears to be a substantial marketing opportunity for restaurants to introduce and promote healthier kids’ meals that appeal to both parents and children…

If restaurants do not implement further improvements voluntarily, advocates should continue to work with state and local municipalities to introduce public policies to improve the healthfulness of kids’ meals. Policy makers should follow the lead of communities in California and Colorado and consider legislation or regulation to require that all restaurants serve healthier kids’ meals…

Unhealthy options, including main dishes, sides, and desserts, remain on kids’ meal menus at most restaurants, and purchases of a kids’ meal plus another menu item for their child have increased. Although future research is required to explain the reasons for these trends, they do indicate that restaurants’ voluntary pledges, as currently implemented, are unlikely to substantially reduce children’s fast-food consumption overall, or increase their selection of available healthier drink and side options.

Furthermore, parents’ positive attitudes about restaurants’ healthier kids’ meal policies indicate that such policies could backfire for public health and increase the frequency of purchasing fast-food for their children without increasing healthier purchases. These findings demonstrate that restaurants must implement more effective healthier kids’ meal policies to avoid additional state and local regulations that would mandate healthier options for children.

_________________________

This is an excerpt from Parents’ Reports of Fast Food Purchases for Their Children:  Have They Improved?, published in September 2018 by the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at the University of Connecticut.  The report’s authors are Jennifer L. Harris, Maia Hyary, Nicole Seymour and Yoon Young Choi.  The full report is available here.

https://youtu.be/2Ng_X4D4SSA

PERSPECTIVE: Patient Protections Fall Short in Proposed Plan for Pre-existing Conditions

Our 33 organizations, representing the interests of the millions of patients and consumers who live with serious, acute, and chronic conditions, have worked together for many months to ensure that patient voices are reflected in the ongoing Congressional debate regarding the accessibility of health coverage for all Americans and families. In March 2017, we identified three overarching principles to guide and measure any work to further reform and improve the nation’s health insurance system. Our core principles are that health care must be adequate, affordable, and accessible. Together, our organizations understand what individuals and families need to prevent disease, manage health, and cure illness. Individuals and families with pre-existing conditions rely on critical protections in current law to help them access comprehensive, affordable health coverage that meets their medical needs. Unfortunately, the arguments of the plaintiffs in Texas v. U.S. – a lawsuit brought by 20 states and two individual plaintiffs – represent a serious threat to these protections. In this case, the plaintiffs argue that the court must invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) due to Congress’ repeal of the individual mandate. We are further troubled that the Department of Justice has also declined to defend the constitutionality of many of the ACA provisions that directly protect people with pre-existing conditions.

While we are pleased to see that you share our concerns about the potential impact of Texas v. U.S. on people with pre-existing conditions, as evidenced by your recent introduction of the Ensuring Coverage for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions Act (S.3388), the safeguards presented in this legislation fall far short of the patient protections encompassed in existing law. This bill as written is far from an adequate replacement for the protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions that are provided under current law.

Current law requires issuers to comply with a set of provisions which work together to promote adequate, affordable, and accessible coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Specifically, community rating, guaranteed issue, essential health benefits, cost-sharing limits, and the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions protect people with serious health care needs from discriminatory coverage practices. These policies are inextricably linked and removing any of them threatens access to critical care for people with life-threatening, disabling, chronic, or serious health care needs.

Adequacy

Health care must be adequate, covering the services and treatments patients need, including patients with unique and complex health care needs. It is paramount that protections including the Essential Health Benefit (EHB) requirement, the ban on annual and lifetime caps, caps on out-of-pocket costs, and restrictions on premium rating be preserved in all health care plans to which they currently apply.

We were particularly disappointed that S. 3388 fails to include an outright ban on pre-existing condition exclusions. While a consumer with pre-existing conditions can gain coverage, the bill would allow issuers to underwrite plans to exclude any type of care based on medical history or health status. For example, under S. 3388 a patient with a history of cancer may be able to gain coverage, but an issuer would still be allowed to exclude coverage for screenings or treatment for a reoccurrence. Continuing to allow issuers to sell plans that undermine access to comprehensive coverage directly contradicts the presumed intent of this legislation, puts consumers at risk for catastrophic healthcare costs or being forced to delay care, and creates additional confusion for consumers and patients.

Affordability

Our second principle recognizes that illness and disease impacts individuals across the economic spectrum. We believe that everyone – regardless of their economic situation – should be able to obtain the treatment they need to manage, maintain, or improve their health. This means that coverage should be affordable, including reasonable premiums and cost-sharing, and that individuals with pre-existing conditions should be protected from being charged more for their coverage.

Although this legislation protects against higher rates based on health status, we remain concerned that it leaves patients and consumers exposed to higher premiums based on other factors that can be used as proxies for health status, such as age, gender, or occupation. For instance, there is no limit on how much more insurers in the individual market could charge a 50-year-old with heart disease because of his age. Insurers could also charge higher rates to a woman of childbearing age because of her gender. This legislation would exacerbate the affordability challenges facing many Americans today by neglecting to maintain current protections and subjecting patients to even higher premiums should the ACA be completely invalidated.

Accessibility

Lastly, health care coverage must be accessible. All people, regardless of employment, health status or geographic location, should be able to gain coverage without waiting periods or undue barriers to coverage. While we appreciate that the legislation would continue to prohibit insurers from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions, we are deeply troubled that, absent other quality and financial protection standards, this provision would offer only minimal assurance to consumers.

Conclusion

While we do not yet know the outcome or scope of the ruling in the Texas v U.S. case, failure to preserve key ACA provisions could have catastrophic implications for both the insurance markets and the millions of patients who rely on them. Partially restoring only two (guaranteed issue and some rating protections) of the multiple provisions that currently protect patients is inadequate and would leave many people without the level of coverage they need and deserve. Should the ACA be struck down and this legislation implemented as a replacement, consumers with pre-existing conditions would face significant financial and coverage barriers. In short, for people with pre-existing conditions, the bill would provide access to coverage in name only.

We share your interest in continuing to make health insurance accessible to Americans with pre-existing conditions and appreciate your efforts to preserve certain protections in law, regardless of the outcome of Texas vs. US. However, the “Ensuring Coverage for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions Act” as currently drafted, falls far short of providing coverage and security to your constituents, including those who are or will face significant health care needs. We urge you and your Senate colleagues to reconsider your approach to S. 3388 and ensure that any future legislation provides protections for people with pre-existing conditions that are the same or better than those included in current law.

Our organizations stand ready to work with you on solutions that serve the patients we represent and would be pleased to meet with you about how this legislation can be improved to meet the needs of people with pre-existing conditions.

___________________________________

This is the complete text of correspondence sent on September 19, 2018 to 16 members of the U.S. Senate, on behalf of 33 organizations including Danbury-headquartered National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) and many others with active chapters in Connecticut. Signatories also included Adult Congenital Heart Association, Alpha-1 Foundation, ALS Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Liver Foundation, American Lung Association, Arthritis Foundation, Chronic Disease Coalition, COPD Foundation, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Family Voices, Global Healthy Living Foundation, Hemophilia Federation of America, Leukemia & Lymphoma Foundation, Lutheran Services in America, March of Dimes, Mended Little Hearts, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National Health Council, National Hemophilia Foundation, National Kidney Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Patient Advocate Foundation, Susan G. Komen, United Way Worldwide, and WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease.

PERSPECTIVE – Nonprofit Board Members: Take Off Your “Stupid Hats”

by Jack Horak The National Association of Nonprofit Organizations and Executives (NANOE) is a relatively new and modest organization, but that hasn’t stopped it from challenging nonprofit sector dogma at the most fundamental level. A case in point is its suggestion that the “volunteer governing board” model should be upgraded to a “paid board” model.

As NANOE sees it, nonprofits adopting this practice would have a line item for “directors fees” in both their budget and their fund-raising literature – and they would do this proudly to let the world know that they are so committed to the mission that they have raised the money necessary to attract and retain the best talent available to fill seats on their governing boards.

The objective is not simply to start paying current volunteers to attend board meetings, but to induce very talented people to join the board where they will be expected to do real work in return for the money. After all, nonprofits pay their management team in exchange for work, so why not follow the same protocol with board members?

This is a sweeping reversal of sector orthodoxy — which presupposes that directors donate both their time and their money to the organizations they serve. Consequently, it’s no surprise that some of the more prominent sector voices were quick to dismiss NANOE’s message as it was rolled out. See, for example, the March 30, 2017 Chronicle of Philanthropy (New Nonprofit Puts Money over Mission and Ethics) and the April 18, 2017 Nonprofit Quarterly (NANOE’s Approach to Nonprofit Leadership: An Insult to your Intelligence).

The negative reaction is understandable to some extent. NANOE’s paradigm turns conventional wisdom on its head so criticism in defense of the status quo is expected. However, after nearly 40 years as a legal and business advisor in the sector, I respectfully disagree with NANOE’s critics. I suggest that if they take their analysis to a deeper and broader level they will find considerable insight in NANOE’s suggestion, and perhaps conclude, as I have, that the paid professional board model may be the optimal choice for some, but not all, organizations.

Here’s why.

We start with a fundamental question — what is a board of directors – and answer it with some history. The concept (and law) of what we commonly refer to as “charity” emerged in medieval England as part of the law of trusts. A charitable trust is an organization governed by a board trustees who hold and manage assets in their names for the benefit of a charitable purpose.

The trust form was predominant for centuries. While it still works well for organizations with activities limited to grant making, it is poorly suited for operating organizations which have service contracts, payrolls, real estate, borrowed money, licensure requirements, and much more. Consequently, as the sector grew and modernized in the middle of the last century, the trust form was pushed aside in favor of the corporate form because corporations have a bifurcated governance structure specifically designed for operating activities.

Corporations have both a board of directors (our topic), and a group of officers who comprise management (such as the CEO or CFO). Corporate law vests all power and authority of the organization in the board, which then delegates power and responsibility to management to conduct operations, but with the board overseeing management’s performance. In other words, the board of directors is at the top of the chain of command. It is not there for show.

Second, operating a nonprofit has become amazingly complicated over the last fifty years. The complexity has fallen on the backs of management, which must deal daily with everything from public expectations, to the morass of state and federal regulation which touches upon everything from HR policy and plans, credentialing, licensing, financial reporting and other challenges that are simply part of the modern turf. Management cannot take this on without board members rolling up their sleeves and doing some real work. Talented CEOs have told me how they long for a strong board to back them up -while expressing their frustration with the common fare offered by “volunteer board recruitment” efforts that don’t always deliver what is needed.

Finally, there is the “Stupid Hat Syndrome.” I first heard this expression from a successful businessman, famously generous with both his money and his volunteer board service. He coined the phrase to express his frustration after years of observing “some of the smartest and most successful business people he knew join a nonprofit board and immediately put on their Stupid Hat.” In other words, they habitually checked their immense brain power and experience at the door. The Stupid Hat metaphor may be hard edged, but the phenomenon is real and all too commonplace in the sector. It’s the 800-pound gorilla in the corner, and it’s as true as the truism that in general “you get what you pay for.”

In contrast, when you pay someone, even a modest amount, you demonstrate respect for what they have to offer; and in return you can comfortably tell them that they are expected to do real work -show up at meetings, read the circulated minutes and financial reports before the meetings, ask informed questions and offer ideas, chair important committees, have calls and meetings with management between meetings to discuss how things are going, and more as necessary. Paying someone for their service is a commercial exchange of value, not an expense. The brain power, experience and work of talented directors who keep their smart hat on at board meetings is worth the money.

I’ll close by saying that there is a lot more to this question than space permits, and by noting that modern nonprofit corporation law is very flexible and allows for use of committees, advisory boards, and other structures that would keep an organization tightly bound to its community while giving this alternative model a chance in appropriate cases —indeed, NANOE’s New Guidelines for Nonprofits may revealed what could be the wave of the future and we should be willing to give it a chance.

_________________________________

Jack Horak joined The Alliance for Non-Profit Growth and Opportunity (TANGO) in 2016 after a 36-year legal career at the Hartford office of the law firm Reid and Riege, P.C. He was a member of the firm’s Business Law Practice, where he created the firm’s Nonprofit Organization Practice Group. He was the principal author of the Reid and Riege Nonprofit Organization Report, a quarterly publication distributed throughout the United States; and also regularly published articles and editorials on legal and policy issues in Philanthropy Magazine, The Hartford Courant, Connecticut Law Tribune, and the Hartford Business Journal, where he writes a regular editorial column entitled “Rule of Law.”  This column first appeared in InsideCharity and the TANGO newsletter.

PERSPECTIVE: CT's Small Towns Receptive to Regional Resource-Sharing

by Leo Paul Connecticut’s small towns and cities support initiatives to encourage voluntary regional cooperation to provide programs and services to meet the needs of local residents in a more efficient, cost-effective manner. As Connecticut’s small towns and cities struggle to do more with less, many communities are exploring new opportunities to share resources to meet these growing needs.

Connecticut’s Regional Councils of Government (COGs) have been instrumental in developing programs to assist towns in delivering services more cost effectively through shared services agreements and regional partnerships. These programs include a wide range of services and functions, including:

• Regional Dispatch Centers
• Regional Animal Control Facilities
• Consolidation of Back Office Functions, i.e. IT, human resources, accounting
• Regional Transfer Stations/Solid Waste Management
• Regional School Districts
• Regional Health Districts
• Group Purchasing of Goods and Services
• Shared Back Office Functions
• Regional online permitting, GIS mapping, and property revaluation.

Programs such as the Regional Performance Incentive Program and Intertown Capital Equipment (ICE) Sharing program have been successful in encouraging communities to utilize regional approaches to delivering services and purchasing equipment to stretch limited municipal dollars. The ICE program, for example, provided state support for the shared purchase of capital equipment, an initiative that allowed towns to share the cost of new/replacement equipment needed to perform critical town services, such as plowing, mowing and fire trucks, etc.

Several years ago, town leaders in Litchfield County implemented a program to share heavy equipment. Ten towns in the area benefit from this program, the Litchfield Hills Public Works Equipment Cooperative, which allows the towns to share major equipment for road maintenance. Two street sweepers and one catch basin cleaner were purchased through the program, which was made possible by a $700,000 grant the council received from the state’s Regional Performance Incentive Program.

Unfortunately, funding for RPIP has been significantly reduced over the years and the ICE program has been eliminated. This is unfortunate because regional sharing programs that allow towns to reduce costs without undermining efficiency are certainly a win-win for the towns and taxpayers.

Regionalism is no Silver Bullet

COGs have been successful in fostering collaborate shared service programs because they work with member towns to identify needs and perform feasibility studies to determine how regional approaches will impact costs and service delivery. This approach recognizes that regional approaches don’t always save money or ensure that services will be delivered more efficiently. According to a 2008 study by Dr. Steve Lanza, editor of The Connecticut Economy, “Municipal consolidation or other service-sharing plans offer no silver bullet for the problem of costly, local public services.”

Too often, legislation promoting regionalism is proposed without fully analyzing whether regionalizing certain programs or services makes sense from an economic and/or service delivery standpoint. A prime example of this is the proposal from the state Department of Public Health to consolidate health districts. This was a top down approach to regionalism that failed because it would have consolidated health districts without regard for cost or for the impact on service delivery to residents. COST attended meetings along with representatives from towns, cities, health districts and health professionals and not one person in the room supported the consolidation proposal.

Unless it can be demonstrated through a thoughtful and comprehensive policy analysis that regional proposals will provide significant benefit or savings, the state should not push towns to rush headlong into such arrangements. Fortunately, COGs are actively working with member towns to determine when regionalism and shared service programs make sense and what it takes to get there.

Successful State/Local Partnerships

In promoting regionalization of services, policymakers should recognize the value of strong state/local partnerships in providing critical services to residents in a cost-effective, value added manner. For more than 60 years, the Resident State Trooper program has been a successful model of a strong state/local partnership that allows towns to share resources and provide critical public safety services to our communities. Not only does the program assist small towns in maintaining a public safety presence, resident state troopers are routinely dispatched from their towns to respond to state police matters outside of their community. The program is a win-win for the state and our small towns and residents.

Unfortunately, towns have had to pay an increasing amount to continue to participate in the program and we are concerned that any additional increases in costs will make it too costly for municipalities to maintain their resident troopers. Towns have explored options to create stand-alone police departments or regional police departments, but these programs are much more costly than the resident trooper program. The towns of Roxbury and Bridgewater have entered into an arrangement to share a resident trooper, which has proven beneficial for both communities, which are very small.

In addition to regional and shared service models, towns have been exploring opportunities to consolidate non-educational expenditures and functions within their communities. For example, the Town of Canton recently entered into an agreement with its Board of Education to share a Finance Director. Other towns have consolidated back office functions under the state’s Nutmeg Network, consolidated maintenance, Human Resource, and other functions. COST supports efforts to assist towns and boards of education in consolidating non-educational expenditures and functions.

Barriers to Regionalism

COGs have worked with towns to successfully identify and support municipal opportunities to regionalize services and improve efficiencies and, as mentioned, there are a number of success stories. However, consolidating services can be difficult and towns often require assistance in 1) undertaking feasibility studies to determine whether consolidation is cost-effective; 2) addressing liability issues that may arise due to sharing arrangements; 3) negotiating contracts for shared services; and 4) addressing collective bargaining/union issues that may undermine savings associated with regional efforts.

COST stands ready to work with lawmakers to develop and support common sense proposals that facilitate the ability of municipalities to

• regionalize certain programs and functions in ways that make sense for the communities involved and for our property taxpayers;
• maintain strong state/local partnership approaches to the delivery of services, such as the Resident Trooper program;
• support the consolidation of non-educational expenditures and functions to improve municipal efficiencies;
• enhance the management of regional school districts; and 5) address barriers to regionalization, including collective bargaining agreements and statutory requirements.

_______________________________

Leo Paul is First Selectman of the Town of Litchfield, and President, Connecticut Council of Small Towns.  This is an excerpt of testimony submitted to the Connecticut state legislature’s Planning and Development Committee at an Informational Forum on Shared Services and Regional Efficiencies held during the legislative session, earlier this year.