Editorial Roundup: New England
Hearst Connecticut Media. May 11, 2023.
Editorial: Send lawmakers back to school before rushing decisions on future of CT colleges
The word “college” should be synonymous with deeper thinking.
Yet the recent discourse at the Connecticut’s highest levels about the future of state colleges and universities has been sounding more like a fourth-grade playground tussle.
Lost in the conversation, as usual, is the future of the students. Imagine being a high school student weighing options, or a current college student trying to sort out whether they’ll be able to pay the bills come September. There are only four weeks left in the session to determine how much the 17 programs (2-year community colleges, 4-year regional public universities and online courses) will get in state funding. Four weeks during which the fate of Connecticut’s colleges will be competing with countless other causes.
It’s a predictable script. Lawmakers will settle on a figure that administrators at the colleges will have to live with. Tuition hikes are inevitable. For some students, that will be enough to drop out. Colleges struggling to boost enrollment take more hits. And the heartless cycle will continue to slam a lot of first-generation college students.
Connecticut, as it has a steady habit of doing with its own image, is sabotaging a reputation as a state with a range of college opportunities for students. Given that some 95 percent of students in our state colleges are from Connecticut, it is also targeting its own future workforce.
This is too important to cram into the workload of lawmakers over a few weeks that also happen to dovetail with the end of the school year. It merits a special session to hash out how the state will support its own colleges, its own students, its own work force, for the next generation.
At the core of the divide is that the Office of Policy and Management says the colleges are asking to continue elevated funding that was added to their budgets during the pandemic, when tuition revenue dropped. The colleges, meanwhile, say the state negotiated union contracts for its work force without providing the funding to pay for it.
You can choose to take sides, but it wouldn’t really matter. The state and the colleges have common stakeholders — the students. And the students are left confused. Will classrooms be larger next semester? Will favorite teachers depart? Will programs be cut?
And there are a lot of those stakeholders. About 85,000, plus their families.
These Connecticut colleges have been battling cuts and consolidation for the better part of the last decade. The governor’s office wants a more sustainable system. Terrence Cheng, who has had oversight of the colleges for the past two years, says enrollment is starting to stabilize.
As any student knows, fighting for survival is not the same as striving for success. And agreeing on the terms of a reduced budget is not the same as planning future innovations, let alone addressing infrastructure that will only erode under financial pressures. If Connecticut is going to burnish a reputation for hosting colleges that are aspirational, its leaders need to remind themselves of what colleges represent. They need to get back to basics. They need to re-imagine. They need to balance life’s realities with its possibilities.
In short, they need to become students again.
___
Portland Press Herald. May 11, 2023.
Editorial: General Assistance must keep up with a changing Maine
The program is the last resort for an increasing number of people with no other options.
Maine’s General Assistance program helps people when they have nowhere else to go – no other options for finding food, shelter or medicine. It is the safety net’s safety net.
And since asylum seekers began arriving in large numbers in 2019, it’s been one of the only ways to keep them afloat while the federal government refuses to let them work.
In both instances, the support represents a small investment in Maine people that can’t help but pay for itself.
As General Assistance faces strain (even as the economy as a whole grows), the Legislature should take the opportunity to improve the program so that assistance reaches the people it needs to.
General Assistance is a municipally administered program that helps residents pay for essentials such as housing, food, fuel and medical supplies. It is not a cash program; cities and towns pay vendors with vouchers, then are reimbursed by the state for 70% of the costs.
The costs of the program nearly tripled in three years, from $12.7 million statewide in 2019 to $37 million in 2022, largely driven by the arrival to Maine of thousands of immigrants seeking asylum, mostly in Portland but in other communities as well.
At the same time, the state’s affordable housing crunch, and rising prices in general, have put more people in financial crisis, forcing them to rely more on General Assistance to avoid homelessness, cold and hunger.
The problems are felt most acutely in service centers – larger communities that act as regional hubs for industry, services, commerce and culture.
Portland accounts for most of it. The city’s size and level of services mean it attracts a lot of vulnerable folks from other communities, in addition to asylum seekers.
But communities all over the state use General Assistance to help residents in crisis. Carl Sheline, the mayor of Lewiston and representative of the Maine Mayors Coalition, recently told a legislative committee that things are only going to get harder for the coalition’s communities, which include Auburn, Augusta, Biddeford, Portland, Rockland, Saco, Sanford, South Portland and Westbrook as well.
“We expect to see even more people turn to the General Assistance program and as well to our own cities, where more services are available,” Sheline told the Health and Human Services Committee.
Without more state help, these communities will be forced to raise property taxes on residents already stressed by rising costs, or cut back on services that are both necessary and already limited.
The Legislature has in front of it a variety of ideas for dealing with the situation – some good, some bad.
First, the bad. A series of bills from Sen. Eric Brakey, an Auburn Republican, aim to reduce General Assistance costs by making fewer people eligible through time limits and residency and work requirements.
None of the bills have a chance at passing in the Democrat-led Legislature, and that’s a good thing. Brakey’s proposals would only leave more Mainers without the resources to get by. They would save what is a relatively small amount of money, and ultimately cost the state more as it felt the repercussions of a broken safety net.
Instead, the state should recognize the important role that service centers play in Maine’s social safety net, and make sure they, and all other communities, have the ability to help people.
As suggested in legislation now before lawmakers, Maine should increase the reimbursement rate for General Assistance to 90%, where it was prior to 2015. That idea is supported not only by Democrats in southern Maine but also by Republican Sen. Marianne Moore of Calais.
The state should also earmark additional money to help communities pay for the cost of administering the program, so that the extra burden is not shouldered by property taxes, and so that they can make sure there aren’t other barriers to residents using the program.
Lengthening eligibility from one month to six, or even a year, would also reduce administrative costs, while also lowering the chance someone will lose benefits over a technicality.
The strain on General Assistance shows why we need a formal statewide program for coordinating services for the influx of asylum seekers. It shows we desperately need more affordable housing.
Most of all, it shows that, when all else fails, Maine residents in crisis need a strong General Assistance program to rely on.
___
Bangor Daily News. May 9, 2023.
Editorial: Maine lawmakers should listen to advisory council on military sexual trauma
If you or someone you know needs resources or support related to sexual violence, contact the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault’s 24/7 hotline at 800-871-7741.
Female soldiers have bravely shared their experience facing sexual assault and harassment in the Maine National Guard, both to the Bangor Daily News and to state lawmakers. That bravery continues to inspire action, most recently through proposed legislation that deserves overwhelming support in Augusta.
Lawmakers, Gov. Janet Mills and guard leadership have taken several steps since the BDN first published its “Unguarded” series in 2021 about the handling of sexual assault and harassment within the Maine Army National Guard. For example, Mills established the Advisory Council on Military Sexual Trauma, which released a promising set of more than 20 initial recommendations in December 2022 to help the Maine National Guard improve its response to sexual assault.
Now it is time for state lawmakers to act on those recommendations.
Some of the recommendations can be made administratively, but others require changes in state statute. That is why Rep. Morgan Rielly, a Democrat from Westbrook, introduced LD 1783. The bill would codify several of the steps proposed by the advisory council.
“The creation of this bill is due in part to past efforts from survivors of military sexual trauma and the advocates who are working to support survivors and hold perpetrators accountable,” Rielly, who also led a successful legislative effort last year to review and improve oversight of the guard, told the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee at a May 1 hearing. “LD 1783 is a continuation of what the prior committee started during the 130th Legislature.”
This newest bill is the ongoing and necessary work to improve how the Maine National Guard prevents and addresses sexual assault would take several steps forward. It would require an annual report from Maine guard leadership to provide certain data to the committee related to sexual assault and harassment, establish paid leave for guard members who report being a victim of sexual assault or harassment within the guard (as well as leave for the alleged perpetrator), and would provide ongoing funding for a military sexual trauma liaison, among other steps.
Importantly, though unsurprisingly, several members of the governor’s advisory council also testified in support of LD 1783 last week.
One of those council members, Maeghan Maloney, the district attorney for Kennebec and Somerset Counties, shared something an unnamed former guard member told her about the changes proposed in LD 1783.
“‘If those changes had been in place when I was in the guard, I wouldn’t be a veteran. I would still be in uniform,’” Maloney said the veteran told her. “(The veteran) went on to explain the greatest regret of her life was leaving the guard after 12 years of service.”
This is both powerful and infuriating. It is infuriating in part because Maine needs people like this veteran, and clearly the system has failed them in the past. It is powerful because it shows the opportunity lawmakers and guard leaders have to improve the situation.
Noticeably absent from the list of people who testified in support of LD 1783 last week was Maj. Gen. Douglas Farnham, the Maine National Guard’s adjutant general. Farnham spoke to the committee about sexual assault and harassment being “simply incompatible with military service,” about ongoing collabortation at the state and federal levels on this issue, but testified neither for nor against the bill.
Given that the guard’s own provost marshal chaired the advisory council, and the initial recommendations from that advisory council led to this bill, we expected to see guard leadership testify definitively in favor of the legislation. We shared our disappointment with the guard’s public affairs office, which further explained that the adjutant general testifying neither for nor against a bill is common when that bill may include a fiscal note — citing the adjutant general’s dual role as both a federally recognized officer and a state commissioner.
“The Maine National Guard is committed to implementing the recommendations of LD 1783 effectively and in a timely manner,” Maine National Guard Public Affairs Officer Maj. Carl Lamb told us in a May 4 statement. We appreciate the clarification. This commitment must carry over to the committee work session and to the Maine House and Senate floor, where lawmakers should overwhelmingly pass this bill.
Passing LD 1783 and quickly implementing it would be yet another step in the right direction to protect guard members from sexual assault and harassment, and to ensure transparency and accountability if it does happen. Ongoing work will remain, but by following through on these initial recommendations, policymakers and guard leadership can continue to build on growing collaboration and positive momentum.
And once again, let’s not forget that this momentum had been made possible first and foremost by the brave soldiers who came forward to share their stories in the first place. State leaders continue to owe them sustained action.
___
Boston Herald. May 4, 2023.
Editorial: Kids can’t tell candy from edibles – that’s a problem
If there’s one thing the Massachusetts State Legislature loves to do, it’s legalize ways for people to get high.
In 2016 it greenlighted marijuana, and earlier this year lawmakers in the House and Senate filed legislation that would give the nod to certain psychedelic plants and fungi. What’s next after “magic mushrooms – LSD?
While the legal cannabis industry in Massachusetts is an economic success story in general, with dispensaries producing billions in revenue for the state, the unintended consequences are nothing short of horrifying.
Earlier this week, four students at the Henderson Inclusion School in Boston were hospitalized for eating pot-infused edibles, according to school officials.
As the Herald reported, Head of School Stephanie Sibley said in a letter to families that the middle-school students “ingested what appeared to be a cannabis-infused chocolate edible,” on Tuesday.
Boston Police spokesman Sgt. Det. John Boyle said the students, three females and a male, “ingested some potato chips of THC and a chocolate bar which contained THC.”
Several Henderson students were also found to be ingesting pot edibles in late March. Earlier that month, students from the Tobin K-8 School in Roxbury were treated for eating food containing the substance.
Edibles can be purchased in the form of peanut butter cups, gummies, chocolate bars and the like.
You know, the stuff children go for.
This is not new. Back in 2020 the Herald wrote an editorial after South Shore Health reported that its pediatric emergency department had seen a rise in cases involving kids who become ill after eating candies, chocolates, sours and “gummies” that contain THC.
A spokesperson added that South Shore Hospital has treated patients as young as 6 who have ingested THC-laced candies and treats.
“Children often can’t tell the difference between a food product laced with THC and one without. Edibles laced with THC, and intended for adult consumption and dosages,’” read a statement from Dr. Mark Waltzman, the chair of pediatrics at South Shore Hospital.
That’s the thing: kids can’t tell a THC-laced chocolate bar from a regular one, or a “special” peanut butter cup from the kind they get at Halloween. Of course the adults who purchased these items have a responsibility to keep them out of children’s hands – but clearly, that’s not happening enough.
It’s not just Massachusetts. As the New York Times reported in January, a study found that accidental consumption of marijuana edibles, such as brownies and gummies, among children under the age of 6 has surged in recent years as more states have legalized the recreational use of pot. The study published in the journal Pediatrics found that there had been a “consistent increase in pediatric edible cannabis exposures over the past five years, with the potential for significant toxicity.”
There were more than 7,000 reported cases of accidental ingestion by children 5 and under between 2017 and 2021, and cases rose 1,375% over that period, the study found.
We can’t just wait and hope that more children don’t get into their parents’ stash. Those who manufacture edibles, schools, community leaders, the medical community and children’s advocates must work together on a solution before an accidental ingestion becomes fatal.
___
Boston Globe. May 11, 2023.
Editorial: Doctors, not government, should decide when to require masks in health care
Lifting the state health care mask mandate is the right policy.
Medical professionals are experts at keeping patients safe from infection. That is why Governor Maura Healey’s administration is making the right decision by rescinding the state mask mandate in health care settings with Thursday’s end of the federal and state COVID-19 state of emergency. This will let hospitals make their own policies going forward. While opponents have real fears about hospital-based virus transmission, health care providers are well-equipped to decide when and where to impose mask requirements.
When COVID-19 was spreading virulently without vaccines or treatments, mask mandates were necessary to keep patients and caregivers safe. But while COVID still poses a serious health threat and people are still dying, society has more tools to handle it now. There are effective tests, vaccines, and treatments, and many people have natural immunity. Mortality rates have declined. Rates of COVID transmission in Massachusetts are low. Many people have returned to schools, offices, and daily activities without masks. Massachusetts is the last state with a universal health care mask mandate.
It makes little sense for the state to require masks for every person visiting a physical therapist, dentist, or pediatrician.
Shira Doron, chief infection control officer for Tufts Medicine, said hospitals have fewer patients hospitalized with COVID today than at any point since March 2020, and there will not be a better time to lift the mask mandate. “The question becomes if it isn’t right now, are we OK with (masking) forever?” she said. There are trade-offs involved: Doron said masks impede communication and connection between patients and providers and harm employee morale.
Experts from Mass General Brigham, Beth Israel Lahey Health, Tufts Medicine, and the VA Healthcare System in Boston wrote in an April 2023 commentary in the Annals of Internal Medicine that in the pandemic’s current stage, universal masking in health care marginally reduces the risk of virus transmission but at a high cost. It impedes communication, particularly for those whose primary language is not English or who are hard of hearing, and requires more cognitive effort by patients and providers. “Masks obscure facial expression; contribute to feelings of isolation; and negatively impact human connection, trust, and perception of empathy,” the physicians wrote.
Importantly, the end of the state mask mandate does not mean the end of masks. Any individual choosing to mask should be supported, and there is evidence that one-way masking with a high-quality, well-fitting mask is highly protective against illness.
And health care facilities have a responsibility to keep patients safe. The Department of Public Health, in May 5 guidance, said health care facilities must maintain evidence-based infection prevention and control policies. This includes improving ventilation, holding vaccine clinics, and imposing mask requirements in specific units or facilitywide, particularly during times of high virus transmission. The department directed health care facilities to make masks available to staff, patients, and visitors. DPH still recommends masking for patients with respiratory illness and for health care providers caring for COVID patients.
Massachusetts Public Health Commissioner Robert Goldstein said the decision to lift the mandate is aligned with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and federal requirements, was made following conversations with health care experts, and can change with circumstances.
The Boston Globe reported that many of the largest hospital systems will drop universal masking including Mass General Brigham, Boston Medical Center, Tufts Medicine, Beth Israel Lahey Health, and UMass Memorial Health. But the policies are nuanced. UMass Memorial Health will require caregivers to mask when seeing patients in emergency departments, oncology clinics, and transplant units. Boston Medical Center will require masks for COVID-positive patients, their visitors, and staff caring for them, and for staff in operating rooms and caring for patients with certain immunocompromising conditions.
Critics of the move include some seniors and people with disabilities who worry about the impact on immunocompromised people who seek medical care. More than 700 people signed a letter organized by the Massachusetts Coalition for Health Equity, a health policy advocacy group that has urged caution on relaxing COVID measures, supporting extending the mask mandate. The letter says people come to health care settings for COVID care, so there is risk of transmission, and failing to require masks violates the medical principal of “do no harm.” “Masking is essential, along with vaccines, ventilation, and other measures, to prevent COVID-related disability and death,” the letter states.
There are also questions that still need to be answered, like whether a patient can ask providers to mask. Colin Killick, executive director of the Disability Policy Consortium, suggested that if staff refuse to mask when requested by a person with a disability, that could invite a legal challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
State Senator Pat Jehlen and state Representative Thomas Stanley, who cochair the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Elder Affairs, urged the state to keep a mandate in place until more people get COVID booster shots. Carlene Pavlos, executive director of the Massachusetts Public Health Association, suggested universal masking in health care settings should become permanent.
Yet for years before the pandemic, doctors managed contagious respiratory illnesses without universal masking. The World Health Organization and the federal government have said the state of emergency is over and COVID-19 should be treated like other respiratory illnesses. In that milieu, infection control decisions are best left to medical professionals.
END