New $1 Coin Series to Be Produced by U.S. Mint; CT’s Himes, Murphy Advocated for Innovation – and CT Company

American innovation is about to be highlighted by the U.S. Mint, but don’t expect to see the results in your loose change. The American Innovation $1 Coin Act will launch the newest numismatic coin program of the United States Mint later this year. The Mint will soon produce and sell $1 collector coins in recognition of American innovation and significant innovation and pioneering efforts of individuals or groups from each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories.  The new program – passed by Congress and signed into law this year - calls for the minting and issuance of non-circulating American Innovation $1 coins.

The legislation was initially proposed by U.S. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut’s 4^th District, and in the Senate by Connecticut U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy.

The program’s duration is a 14-year period that begins January 1, 2019.  The coins are to be issued in the order in which the state or territory ratified the Constitution or were admitted to the Union. The law also authorizes a 2018 introductory coin which will be minted and issued in the latter part of this calendar year.

When the bill passed the House, Himes said: “This bill will support jobs and the industry around collectible coins, including here in Connecticut, all without costing taxpayers at all.” Murphy added: “Our country was built on innovation and entrepreneurship, and what better way to celebrate it than through a program that creates jobs and reduces the national debt.”

He noted that the proposed coin series would also support local jobs at Norwalk-based MBI Inc., one of the leading commemorative coin companies in the country.

The introductory coin will bear an obverse common to all coins in the program. It will consist of a likeness of the Statue of Liberty, and the inscriptions of “$1” and “In God We Trust.” The reverse of the introductory coin will be inscribed with “United States of America” and “American Innovators,” and it will include a representation of President George Washington’s signature on the first U.S. patent. The inscription of the year of minting or issuance, mint mark, and “E Pluribus Unum” will be edge-incused into all coins.

American Innovation $1 coins, to be issued at a rate of four new coins per year, will bear a reverse image or images emblematic of a significant innovation, an innovator, or a group of innovators from each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of the United States.  Published reports indicate that the $1 coins would sell for more than face value — up to $1.32 — providing a healthy profit for the federal government since the coins cost less than 35 cents to make.

“Americans tinkering in the shed, programming in the garage, and growing big ideas from humble roots have always had great impact on our economy and future,” added Himes. “We can honor them, inspire a new generation of entrepreneurs and scientists, and help the economy with this coin series.”

MBI markets a wide range of historic coinage, like rare silver dollars and foreign coins from antiquity, according to the company website.  The company also capitalizes on the newly minted designs in circulation, and has already begun marketing the new state innovation dollar series to collectors.  The coins offered by the company, through PCS Coins, would be “protectively encased” in custom-designed “collector panels” prepared for placement in albums.  The coins will also be available from numerous other sources, but will not be issued by the U.S. Mint for general circulation.

The company’s publicity suggests that the Connecticut coin would include a back design honoring the state’s contribution to American Sign Language, but it is unclear if that decision has yet been made.  The company’s coin designs are shown on marketing materials “for illustrative purposes only.”

According to the legislation, the Secretary of the Treasury will select the designs after consultation with each Governor or other chief executive and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts; and review by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.

Congress created the United States Mint in 1792, and the Mint became part of the Department of the Treasury in 1873. As the Nation’s sole manufacturer of legal tender coinage, the Mint is responsible for producing circulating coinage for the Nation to conduct its trade and commerce. The Mint also produces numismatic products, including proof, uncirculated, and commemorative coins; Congressional Gold Medals; silver and bronze medals; and silver and gold bullion coins. Its numismatic programs are self-sustaining and operate at no cost to taxpayers, according to the Mint.

Avon Library to Explore First Amendment, Freedom of the Press

Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote, “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost,” is the centerpiece of a lecture series hosted by the Avon Public Library examining freedom of the press in America’s democracy. Anti-media rhetoric from President Trump, which was a constant during his campaign and since, has spurred interest in the topic.  The discussions in Avon, which are free, will be led by local educators and historians and continue into the fall.

Upcoming sessions are:

Discovering Katherine Graham  - Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 2:00 pm:  This program will consider relevant sections of Katherine Graham’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography, Personal History (1997) alongside the film adaptation, The Post . It will focus on Graham’s representations of the Newspaper Guild and the pressman’s strike, the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate Affair, and the Vietnam War in light how The Post depicts the struggle to uphold the principles of journalistic integrity when faced with adversity.   The literature discussion will be led by Aimee Pozorski, CCSU English Department; film discussion will be led by Dr. Karen Ritzenhoff, CCSU Communication Department.

“We Hold These Truths”: The Declaration of Independence; A Single Page that Changed the World - Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 2:00 pm:  An interactive and illustrated discussion about the events surrounding the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress will be led by Bev York, Education Director for the Windham Textile and History Museum.  Attendees are asked to review the declaration of Independence prior to the session.

The Bill of Rights for High School Students - Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 3:00 pm:  What can students say and do to exercise the First Amendment right of free speech and freedom of religion in schools?  How has the Supreme Court ruled on these issues, and what avenues of redress are open to students if they think that their rights have been violated?  These and other questions will be explored in this session, led by Stephen McGrath, CCSU History Department.  It is geared for teens, but attendance is not limited.

The Popularity of Alexander Hamilton - Thursday, September 13, 2018, 3:00 pm: An illustrated talk about the inspiring story of the Alexander Hamilton, and his contributions, struggles, and tragic death.  After years of being perceived as having only a supporting role, Hamilton’s star has risen, confirming his belief that “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” The discussion will be led by Bev York, Education Director for the Windham Textile and History Museum.

Social Media, the Press, and Us - Monday, September 17, 2018, 6:30 pm:  The everyday reality of media use around the globe is changing rapidly due to the proliferation of smart phones, tablets and multiple screens that allow access to, and immediate dissemination of, the news. This talk will focus on the way social media is not only shaping our human relationships in a digital age but also our understanding of the world around us. How does user-generated content allow for new participatory energies to develop while also deeply affecting cultural identities and generating new types of intimacies. Lecture and discussion will be led by Dr. Karen Ritzenhoff, CCSU Communication Department.

A full description of the upcoming lectures is available, and the library also has resources available through their website, at www.avonctlibrary.info.

Girl Scouts Releases 30 New Badges to Promote Leadership, Prepare for Career Paths

Girl Scouts of Connecticut and Girl Scouts of the USA has unveiled 30 new badges exclusively for girls ages 5–18 that not only enhance the “one-of-a-kind Girl Scout experience,” but also address some of society’s most pressing needs, officials announced.  The new badges will reflect achievements in areas including cybersecurity, environmental advocacy, mechanical engineering, robotics, computer science, and space exploration.  It is the largest number of new badges to be simultaneously announced in recent memory. “Because of Girl Scouts and its safe, all-girl space, girls develop important skills including confidence and perseverance and set themselves up for success and to take action for a better world,” said Girl Scouts of Connecticut CEO Mary Barneby. “Today’s youth are more vocal than ever about the change they want to see, and Girl Scouts are the most equipped with the skills needed to make a real impact.”

Girl Scouts of Connecticut includes over 41,000 members, including girls and adults.  The new programming for girls in grades 6–12 includes:

• Environmental Stewardship badges, GSUSA’s first-ever badge series focused on environmental advocacy. Girls in grades 6–12 prepare for outdoor experiences and take action on environmental issues. Although Girl Scouts have been advocating for the environment since the organization’s founding 106 years ago, these badges are the first to specifically prepare girls to be environmental advocates who address problems, find solutions, and protect the natural world (funded by the Elliott Wildlife Values Project).
• Badges that teach girls how to program, design, and showcase robots, completing the suite of Robotics badges GSUSA first introduced for grades K–5 last year.
• The College Knowledge badge for Girl Scouts in grades 11 and 12, the first badge completely dedicated to college exploration. By showing girls how to research the admissions process, financial aid, and other factors, the badge fills a specific need that girls asked for—and that many do not have support for outside Girl Scouts. 
• Two Girl Scout Leadership Journeys: Think Like a Programmer (funded by Raytheon) provides a strong foundation in computational thinking and the framework for Girl Scouts’ first ever national Cyber Challenge, coming in 2019. The Think Like an Engineer Journey exposes girls to design thinking to understand how engineers solve problems. As with all Leadership Journeys, girls complete hands-on activities and use their newly honed skills to take action on a problem in their community. The programming aims to prepare girls to pursue careers in fields such as cybersecurity, computer science, and robotics.

Surveys indicate that 76 percent of women today wish they had learned more about leadership and had more leadership opportunities while growing up.  That number indicates  how imperative it is for girls and volunteers to join Girl Scouts, officials point out.  The KPMG Women's Leadership Study of more than 3,000 professional and college women shows that early exposure to leadership has a significant impact on a woman’s perceptions of her ability to lead.

Girls in grades K–5 can now earn badges in:

• Environmental Stewardship, through which girls learn how to respect the outdoors and take action to protect the natural world (funded by the Elliott Wildlife Values Project).
• Cybersecurity, introducing girls to age-appropriate online safety and privacy principles, information on how the internet works, and how to spot and investigate cybercrime (funded by Palo Alto Networks).
• Space Science, enabling girls to channel their inner NASA scientist as they learn progressively about objects in space and how astronomers conduct investigations. (funded by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and led by the SETI Institute).
• Mechanical Engineering for Girl Scout Juniors, through which girls in grades 4 and 5 design paddle boats, cranes, and balloon-powered cars, learning about buoyancy, potential and kinetic energy, machines, and jet propulsion. Following last year’s introduction of Mechanical Engineering badges for girls in grades K–3, the addition of these badges for Girl Scout Juniors means that all Girl Scouts in elementary school can now have hands-on engineering experiences.

Content collaborators include Connecticut Science Center, Sikorsky, SWE (Society of Women Engineers), Discovery Museum, New York Academy of Sciences, NASA, Random Hacks of Kindness, The Maritime Aquarium, and Project Oceanology.

https://youtu.be/OSgvY6XCd2g

Transportation Infrastructure in CT Among Nation's Worst; Including Structurally Deficient Highway Bridges

When the Mianus River Bridge on Interstate 95 in Greenwich collapsed 35 years ago, killing three motorists and putting an unprecedented focus on road and bridge infrastructure in Connecticut, it was apparently not preceded by public warnings about the poor condition of the state’s roads and bridges. Today, the warnings are abundant, in Connecticut and elsewhere, including a new ranking which underscores that New England and the Northeast are the epicenter for transportation infrastructure in need of improvement.

The latest comes from a ranking developed by CNBC, which found that 73 percent of Connecticut roads are in bad shape, giving the state a grade of D, while noting that nearly 8 percent of Connecticut's bridges are deficient.  Data from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)  earlier this year indicated that 332 of the state’s 4,238 bridges were deemed deficient, six fewer than the previous year.    

Connecticut is not the only state in the region with acute infrastructure problems in need of costly solutions.  From the bottom up, the states ranking lowest in the analysis are Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Maryland and West Virginia (tie), New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Mississippi.

The CNBC report said of Connecticut:  “The infrastructure situation in the Nutmeg State is so bad, you could say Connecticut is moving backward. With the state facing a fiscal crisis, Gov. Dannel Malloy had to cancel $4.5 billion in transportation projects last year, proposing instead to restore tolls to the state’s highways for the first time in more than 30 years. That idea, so far, has gone nowhere. As politicians continue to debate, Connecticut roads continue to deteriorate.”

According to data published by ARTBA, Connecticut’s most traveled structurally deficient bridge – and the 60^th most traveled structurally deficient bridge in the nation – is on I-95 in Norwalk, over the Norwalk River at Hendricks Avenue, between exits 15 and 16.  Additionally, highway bridges in New Haven, Fairfield and Hartford are also among the 110 most highly travelled and structurally deficient in the United States, the ARTBA indicates. 

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association has noted that the state's Special Transportation Fund faces insolvency by 2020—despite Connecticut having the seventh highest gas taxes in the nation, adding that this fall, voters will consider a constitutional amendment creating a lock box to protect dedicated transportation funding from being diverted to other uses.

According to Ballotpedia, the measure would require that all revenue placed in the state's Special Transportation Fund (STF) be used for transportation purposes, including the payment of transportation-related debts. The state legislature would be prohibited from spending the fund on non-transportation purposes.

The STF is funded by the motor fuels tax, motor carrier road tax, petroleum products gross earnings tax, certain motor vehicle receipts and fees, motor vehicle-related fines, and a portion of state sales tax.

The top five states with the best transportation infrastructure, according to the CNBC analysis, are Texas, Indiana, Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Study: Working-Class Candidates Less Likely to Run in Public Financing System

A new academic study has found that working-class first-time candidates for the Connecticut legislature became rarer after the state enacted public campaign financing, when compared with candidates in neighboring Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The study, by a Harvard University researcher, found that working-class candidates in Connecticut were less likely to qualify for the state’s public financing for candidates, apparently because of the requirement to raise a large number of small-dollar private contributions to qualify for public financing.

The findings demonstrate that when public financing is available, fewer low socio-economic status candidates run for state legislative office, and “those who do run are not more likely to win and are less likely to utilize public financing.”

The study’s author, Mitchell Kilborn, is a PhD candidate at Harvard University’s Department of Government concentrating in American Politics. His research focuses on inequality in political participation and the interaction between commercial activity and political behavior.  The study was published in the journal State Politics & Policy Quarterly last month.

Candidates running for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of the State, State Comptroller, State Treasurer, State Senator or State Representative can participate in the state’s Citizens Election Program. To participate, candidates must agree to abide by certain requirements, including strict contribution and expenditure limits and mandatory financial disclosures.

Candidates must raise an aggregate amount of small-dollar monetary contributions from individuals (“qualifying contributions”) between $5 and $100 in the case of statewide office candidates and between $5 and $250 in the case of General Assembly candidates.

PERSPECTIVE: Homelessness at State Universities Hidden in Plain Sight

The CT Youth Count! is part of a statewide effort to better understand and end youth homelessness by 2020. For the past three years, the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness has led this data-gathering and awareness-raising census in which teams of youth and volunteers survey young people in cities and towns, rural areas, within youth-serving organizations, in schools, and at local “hotspots” to collect information on their housing status.

Youth are not identified by name, but the count is an opportunity to gauge how many youth face housing insecurity and homelessness and to share information about available services. The Youth Count is an opportunity for communities to work toward a quicker system of identification when a student is struggling with a housing crisis.

Linkages to services to address acute instances of homelessness were established during the count. The data from the count resides at CCEH to analyze and share with the wider community, state, and federal partners. (The full Youth Count report can be found on the CCEH website, here.)

In the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) system, unstable housing - or the lack of housing altogether – is a barrier to academic success and stability for many students. Faculty, counselors and deans report that students are living in cars and “couch surfing” at friends’ or relatives’ homes while, at the same time, they are trying to attend college because they know that education is their path to a better future. During Town Hall meetings across the state during the 2016-17 academic year, CSCU President Ojakian was approached by many students who said that they were homeless and needed additional support.

CSCU partnered with the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness (CCEH) to address this significant barrier to student success. A forum was held at Manchester Community College on September 15, 2017 to address this issue, along with mental health and other needs faced by CSCU students. Several CSCU institutions attended, including Norwalk Community College and Central Connecticut State University.

As a follow-up to that forum, Vice Presidents and Deans of Students Affairs, along with the system office, the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness (CCEH) and others, have been exploring how to get more accurate data concerning homelessness and housing insecurity and how to implement a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) system to provide a more comprehensive, consistent and trackable response to homeless students.

CSCU agreed to have 16 institutions serve as sites for conducting the Youth Count survey from January 24 – 31, 2018 (Charter Oak State College did not participate because it is a fully online institution.). Because the Youth Count focuses on youth age 24 and under, the survey instrument was modified to capture CSCU students over the age of 24. The Youth Count, occurs in conjunction with the HUD-required Point-in-Time (PIT) count, an annual census of sheltered and unsheltered individuals and families experiencing homelessness on one night in January. For more details on the PIT or Youth Count methodology, visit CCEH’s website at www.cceh.org.

The [December 4] event focused on important steps to take leading to the count and provided an introduction to the Connecticut Coordinated Access Network (CAN) system of services. Each participating college or university identified leads for the effort and formed local steering committees to begin to articulate how the Youth Count would be conducted in each community. Specifically, each CSCU institution was asked to prepare an implementation plan, including how it would recruit volunteers, work with existing groups, schedule the survey times and places and spread the word to the school and region.

While additional research needs to be done, this preliminary research indicates some important findings on CSCU students and their housing instability. The total number of CT college and university students surveyed was 1,978, with CSCU schools representing the majority with 1,623 surveys completed by CSCU students. Of those surveyed, an average of 17.5% of CSCU students reported recent housing instability or homelessness. For those schools surveying less than 30 individuals, it is more difficult to have confidence in the percentages experiencing a housing crisis.

However, 12 of the 16 CSCU schools surveyed over 30 individuals, with some participating CSCU institutions completing over 100 surveys; including 320 surveys at Housatonic Community College, 290 surveys at Manchester Community College, 243 at Naugatuck Valley, 164 at Three Rivers and 117 at Eastern Connecticut State University.

Of those schools reporting more than 30 individuals surveyed, the schools with the largest percentages of students experiencing a housing crisis are as follows: 38% at Gateway Community College with 42 students surveyed; 21% at Middlesex with 71 students surveyed; 26% at Eastern CT State University with 117 students surveyed; 19% at Housatonic with 320 students surveyed; 14% at Manchester Community College with 290 students surveyed; 13% at Three Rivers Community College with 164 surveys completed; 10% at Northwestern CCC with 88 completed surveys;11% at Asnuntuck with 81 surveys completed; 9% at Naugatuck Valley Community College with 243 completed surveys; 13% at Norwalk Community College with 72 surveys completed, and 38 surveys completed at Tunxis Community College with a 13% rate of housing instability and homelessness.

The University of Connecticut system also completed 289 surveys and showed a rate of 10% of students experiencing housing instability or homelessness.

These percentages highlight the high levels of homelessness and housing instability among students on CT campuses. Although more precise data is needed, this data reinforces the need to create coordinated systems to address homelessness and housing instability on CSCU and other campuses across the state.

The establishment of a Single Point-of-Contact (SPOC) system within the CSCU system will provide a visible campus office that can assist in increasing student awareness, enabling earlier identification and intervention, and augmenting the expertise of administration, staff, and faculty to help these students find housing solutions.

____________________________________

This is an excerpt of the introduction to Homelessness and Housing Instability in Connecticut Colleges and Universities, a report prepared by the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness for the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) system and published in July 2018.

CT’s K-12 Enrollment Drops, Demographic Diversity Grows

Between the 2007-08 school year and the just completed 2017-18 school year in Connecticut, total K-12 student enrollment across the state dropped by nearly 40,000 students, reflected a gradual year-over-year decline in every year of the decade. According to state Department of Education data, enrollment in 2007-08 was 574,848, which slid down to 535,025 this past year, a decline of 39,823 students, or just under 7 percent.

The demographic characteristics of Connecticut’s students has changed substantially.  During the past ten years, the percentage of White students has dropped from 65 percent of those enrolled to 53 percent, while the percentage of Hispanic students has grown from 17 percent in 2007-08 to nearly 25 percent (24.85%) during the school year that ended last month. The percentage of Black students has nudged upward, from 13 to 14 percent.

There were 286,506 White students, 132,940 Hispanic students and 68,697 Black or African American Students during the 2017-18 school year.  That compares with 373,818 White students, 96,127 Hispanic students and 80,234 Black students.  In the past decade, the number of Black students has increased by about 11,000 while the number of Hispanic students has grown by more than triple that - about 36,000.

There were 79,256 students who had qualified for Special Education status last year, up from 68,750 in 2007-08.

Seven percent of students, a total of 38,368, qualified for English Learner status, compared with about 5 percent, or 30,088 students, during the 2007-08 academic year.

Looking ahead, there were 36,239 students in Kindergarten in Connecticut public schools last year.  In 2007-08, there were 39,944.

9 CT Communities Among Nation’s Best to Start Small Business

Nine Connecticut communities are among the best in the nation for starting a small business, according to student loan company LendEdu, which has produced a list of the 500 Best Cities to Start a Small Business in the U.S. Storrs/Mansfield topped the list in Connecticut at 89. Also making the list were Stamford (178), Farmington (214), Windsor (247), Hamden (285), Oxford (387), Westport (477), Cromwell (486) and New Fairfield (493).

Founded in 2014, LendEdu describes itself as a marketplace for private student loans, student loan refinancing, credit cards and personal loans.

The top 10 included three cities in North Dakota, four from Virginia, and cities in Maryland, Colorado and Alabama.  The highest ranked New England community – Canton, MA – was number 49. Storrs-Mansfield was the leading community in Connecticut.

On the population score rankings alone, New Fairfield had the eighth best score in the nation.  On the income score scale, Hamden ranked 29th, highest among the Connecticut communities.  On the Expense scale, Stamford, just outside the top 50, was tops in Connecticut.

Cities were ranked based on the following criteria:

• Population Score (20 points maximum) – including the daytime population score - the difference in the normal population and the population that is present during standard working day hours – and the population growth score - forecasted population growth over the next five years.
• ​Income Score (40 points maximum) – consisting of the average disposable income available to residents and forecasted income growth over the next five years.
• Expense Score (40 points maximum) – which includes consideration of property tax rates, sales tax rates, average cost of utilities, rate of burglaries and property crimes compared to the national averages.

PERSPECTIVE: Protecting the Separation of Powers

by Mark Dubois [This is] a topic that is much discussed by us who study and live the law, but little understood and appreciated by the public: the separation of powers.

The origin of the separation of powers is specifically credited to Montesquieu during the Enlightenment, who wrote of it in “The Spirit of the Laws in 1748,” a document whose influence was significant in the 1787 creation of the Constitution of the United States.

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

“Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

“There would be an end of every thing, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”

James Madison wrote on the necessity of a separation of powers in the “Federalist Papers”: “It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

“This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public … that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.

“These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.”

The role of the courts in regulating the other branches of government was not immediately acknowledged, receiving its first expression in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and later in Dred Scott in 1857, both instances when SCOTUS held federal laws to be unconstitutional and unenforceable.

As a matter of fact, it wasn’t until after the Civil War that the notion that our federal courts were a co-equal branch of government and not just a place for the resolution of private disputes really began to take hold.

Since then, however, it’s become accepted and understood that our courts remain the bulwark where those seeking relief from executive fiat or legislative errors can be given shelter.

Closer to home, and unlike the federal system where separation of powers is found in the interstices rather than in the text, we have our own constitution which specifically spells the concept out.

In Connecticut, separation of powers was not codified into our law until the adoption of the Constitution of 1818.

Article 2, as amended by Article 18 of the amendments, provides: “The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments, and each of them confided to a separate magistracy…”

Before that constitution, much of the power of state government resided in the legislature. And here in the land of steady habits, change came slow. It took more than 60 years from the adoption of the 1818 constitution until the first meaningful iterations of the principle of separation of powers was realized by action of the Supreme Court of Errors in Styles v. Tylerin 1884 and the Norwalk Street Railway Appeal 13 years later in 1897.

Indeed, the most significant separation-of-powers cases did not begin until the latter half of the last century, with the Connecticut Bar v. Connecticut Bank unauthorized practice of law case in 1958, Adams v. Rubinow, dealing with probate courts in 1968 and State v. Clemente, in 1975, a criminal case nearly 160 years after the constitution was adopted.

As with our federal brethren, our state courts have now fully embraced their role as protectors of this important principle.

Recently we’ve seen separation of powers being the deciding issue in a number of cases in very different contexts. State v. Courchesne, and its progeny, dealt with the ability of the Legislature to establish rules governing how courts were to interpret statutes; Bysiewicz v. Dinardo (whether exercising executive powers and functions could be deemed to be practicing law); Persels v. Banking Commissioner (regulation of the legal profession by the executive branch); and Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell (education funding).

The push and pull of power and authority against and across the necessary porous boundaries between these separate magistracies remains an ongoing dynamic, no less today than when Montesquieu and Madison wrote about it in the 18th century. And, as Madison correctly noted, none of us is an angel. The process of government is far from perfect, and even the best systems are no better than those who enforce them.

Federal courts who have been asked to slow our president down have been attacked as “so-called judges,” not much different from a half century or more ago when they were desegregating the schools.

Closer to home, the recent legislative grilling of a sitting Supreme Court justice over his rulings on the death penalty and other politically charged issues during hearings over his proposed ascension to the position of chief justice warns us that we’re no better or worse than our friends in Washington.

We may not all agree on specific issues, but we can and should agree that the system of separation of powers or constitutional checks and balances is a necessary and enervating principle essential to the proper working of our government.

It is our duty, having taken an oath as both a lawyer and a commissioner of the superior court, to stand up and say no when political, personal or passing fashions or ideas threaten the proper and independent operation of any of our branches of government, especially the judiciary.

It is therefore fitting that we take time today, celebrating the rule of law, to reaffirm our fealty to these principles. If the ideals embodied in our state and federal constitutions are to continue to make us a strong and vibrant country, it’s all our duty to speak out and protect them when we see them under attack.

___________________________________

Former Connecticut Chief Disciplinary Counsel Mark Dubois is with Geraghty & Bonnano in New London.  These remarks were delivered as part of a Law Day 2018 observance in Middletown this spring, and subsequently published in the Connecticut Law Tribune.  

Education, Individual Impact Drive Mission of New Climate Change Center

Former Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection and Administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency Gina McCarthy has made the shift from government to academia, with the launch of The Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. C-CHANGE is a new collaboration between Harvard University and Google that will seek to reduce the use of harmful chemicals in building products and materials.  C-CHANGE is committed to transforming science into meaningful actions that will deliver a healthier, more just, and sustainable world, according to the university.

The Center aims to ensure that government officials, business leaders, and the public have access to the best science so they can understand the health and environmental challenges they face, why it matters to them, and how they can get engaged.

McCarthy headed the Connecticut DEP from 2004 to early 2009, and left to become head of EPA's air and radiation office before advancing to the nation’s top environmental protection job in 2013.

Appearing on Conversations on Health Care, a podcast produced by Middletown-based Community Health Center Inc., McCarthy discussed past, present and future.  On the program, hosted by President and Co-founder Mark Masselli and Senior Vice President and Clinical Director Margaret Flinter, McCarthy said C-CHANGE was working to make climate change “very personal, and actionable to individuals, and families and businesses.”  She added, “information is power… I want people to have that information.”

McCarthy said she understands the concerns of some in the environmental community regarding Trump Administration efforts to roll back many of the Obama-era policies, but she said it will be tougher to accomplish than most believe.

“What we did was follow the science, we followed the law, we did great public process around it and I think we did a really good job,” McCarthy said, noting that many of the rule-change proposals of the past year or so are not yet final, and may not become final. “They’re going to have a very hard time.”

Her work at C-CHANGE is designed to accelerate and strengthen public education on climate change and pollution issues, bringing the science down to the individual level, highlighting the impacts on people, rather than the planet.

Reflecting on her time leading EPA, McCarthy said “We showed you can make progress environmentally, to preserve and protect public health, and our natural resources, but you can also, at the same time, do them in very cost effective, reasonable ways that in fact enhanced our economy and jobs.”

Last spring, Gov. Malloy appointed McCarthy to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Green Bank.

At the C-CHANGE kick-off this spring, Harvard Chan School Dean Michelle Williams said “The Center will pave the way for new research and student engagement on energy systems, food and nutrition, healthier buildings, and products to benefit our school, our country, and the world.”  McCarthy spoke about the importance of broadening support for environmental and climate action by calling attention to the impact of climate change on people’s health and the solutions to address it.

“Climate change isn’t about saving the planet and it’s not about politics, it’s about our kids and making sure they have the opportunity for a healthy, sustainable world,” said McCarthy. “C-CHANGE will ensure that cutting-edge science produced by Harvard Chan School is actionable—that the public understands it, and that it gets into the hands of decision-makers so that science drives decisions.”

C-CHANGE, the Harvard Office for Sustainability, and Google will work together to develop a set of public tools and resources that use the latest scientific research to inform decision-making by large institutions, purchasers, and manufacturers to help transform the marketplace to healthier alternatives. The collaboration,  to the university, aims to improve public health and the well-being of communities, reduce the use of harmful chemicals and leverage lessons learned to create a model that can be replicated by other organizations.

Moving forward, the two groups intend to continue partnering with Harvard’s schools to use the campus as a living lab to test new ideas and verify performance.