Jonathan Kantrowitz

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) gave the following remarks as she joined Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Representatives Schakowsky and Matsui, and representatives from AARP and the Center for Medicare Advocacy to call for the passage of health care reform.

Last night, our Republican colleagues once again showed their true colors when it comes to health care for our seniors and American families.

For hours on end, they voted against motion after motion to protect seniors’ health, shore up the Medicare trust fund, bring down the cost of health insurance, close the donut hole – a donut hole they themselves created in 2003 – and add important preventive benefits for seniors.

Meanwhile, too many seniors are struggling desperately with health care costs. Seniors should not have to skip necessary medical care that could save their lives, or take half a pill instead of a whole pill to save money – yet that is exactly what is happening right now.

Today, we have a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which finds that prices for commonly-used medications in the donut hole have far outpaced inflation since 2006. Actonel, a common osteoporosis treatment, has risen 39 percent since then. Aricept – for Alzheimer’s disease – has risen 41 percent. And Plavix, an important medication for reducing blood clots, has gone up 25 percent.

Our reforms would aid seniors who need these potentially life-saving medications. They close the donut hole in Medicare Part D completely. But if we do nothing – as our Republican colleagues would have us do – that donut hole is projected to increase to $5,755 by 2018.

Our reforms provide immediate relief to seniors. They will reduce the size of the donut hole by $500 right away. And they guarantee 50 percent price discounts on brand-name drugs and biologics, including all the drugs I just mentioned, for low and middle-income beneficiaries in the coverage gap.

Meanwhile, our Republican colleagues have voted again and again, against these benefits for seniors. In the battle for health reform, they stand with the insurance industry.

In November, when the House voted in our health reform bill to close the donut hole and add important preventive benefits to Medicare – the Republicans said no.

In December, when the Senate voted on their bill to provide discounts to seniors in the donut hole, shore up the Medicare trust fund, and help seniors and their doctors take better care of their chronic diseases – Republicans said no.

And last night, when Democrats offered a motion in the Budget Committee to strengthen Medicare by closing the donut hole and expanding access to preventive care, once again, the Republicans said no.

So that is what we are faced with – a choice between the Democratic way of strengthening Medicare, closing the donut hole, and promoting prevention and wellness for seniors; or, the Republican way of dismantling Medicare, turning it into a voucher system, and throwing seniors into an unregulated private market.

I think the American people know which way we should move forward.

U.S. Congressman John B. Larson (CT-01) reports that House Democrats are closer than ever to reforming our nation’s broken health insurance system with a plan that puts Americans back in control of their health care choices, holds insurance companies accountable, and makes coverage more affordable.

Connecticut will see immediate benefits as soon as the legislation goes into effect. Individuals who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition will be able to buy affordable coverage through a temporary high-risk pool while banning insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. In addition, insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping people when they get sick and seniors’ costs for prescription drugs will go down.

“This bill gives Connecticut residents more choices and brings down their health care costs,” said Rep. Larson. “As soon as it’s enacted, small businesses, seniors, young people, and those who have been discriminated against by insurance companies will see immediate relief.”

Once the bill is enacted it will:

-Prohibit insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick.

-Ban insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.

-Require new private plans to cover preventative services and immunizations with no co-payments.

-Provide a tax credit of up to 35% of premiums to small businesses that provide health coverage to their employees.

-Extend coverage to young people, allowing them to remain on their parents’ insurance policy until their 26th birthday.

-Create a temporary high-risk pool to insure those who are currently uninsured because of a cancer, diabetes or any other pre-existing condition.

-Protect consumers by ensuring they have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal insurance plan decisions.

-Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans.

-Increase funding for new training programs to train more primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals and for community health centers – allowing them to almost double the amount of patients they treat over the next five years.

For seniors in Connecticut, the legislation will provide immediate relief by:

-Providing a $250 rebate for Medicare beneficiaries who hit the “donut hole.”

-Making preventative services and immunizations free under Medicare right away – eliminating co-payments for preventative services and exempting preventative services from deductibles.

-Expanding home and community care so seniors can live longer in their homes not at a nursing home.

“I’ve traveled around this district and spoken to residents that know firsthand how important reforming the health insurance system is to this nation. I think about Kristen Martinez from Colebrook, who at the age of 31 was diagnosed with stage 4 Metastatic Breast Cancer and fears she will be dropped by her insurance company. And the seniors I met at the Windsor Senior Center, who talked about the rising costs of prescription drugs and the need to close the Medicare Part D “donut hole”. They cannot wait any longer for action and I stand with them,” said Rep. Larson. “By enacting health care reform right away, we will be able to lower costs for everyone, providing the seniors like the ones I met in Windsor, and citizens like Kristen, more control and security when it comes to their health care.”

The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) prohibits tobacco industry advertising practices that encourage underage teenagers to smoke, yet new research out of the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego has found that a 2007 marketing campaign for Camel brand cigarettes was effective in encouraging young girls to start smoking.

The study, led by John P. Pierce, PhD, professor of Family and Preventive Medicine and director of the Cancer Center’s Cancer Prevention and Control Program, will be published March 15 in an early online edition of the scientific journal Pediatrics.

The research, part of a national study on parenting practices, involved 1,036 males and females who were 10 to 13 years old when enrolled onto the study. Between 2003 and 2008, scientists conducted five telephone interviews, which included questions about smoking. The fifth interview was conducted after the start of RJ Reynolds’ “Camel No. 9” advertising campaign in 2007.

Consistent with earlier research, the new study showed that youth who had never smoked but who reported having a “favorite” cigarette ad at the beginning were 50 percent more likely to initiate smoking. The number of boys with a favorite ad was stable across all five surveys. For girls, however, it was stable across the first four surveys, but by the fifth survey, which took place after the start of the Camel No. 9 campaign, the proportion of girls who reported a favorite ad jumped by 10 percentage points, to 44 percent. The Camel brand accounted almost entirely for this increase.

The Camel No. 9 marketing campaign included ads resembling fashion spreads that were placed in five of the top 10 U.S. teen readership magazines, such as Glamour and Vogue. The campaign also featured promotional giveaways such as berry lip balm, cell phone jewelry, purses and wristbands.

Ned Lamont today announced the senior members of his campaign team. Lamont has opened his campaign headquarters in downtown New Haven at 169 Orange Street.

“As a businessman, I learned that one of the keys to success is hiring good people,” said Lamont. “It´s what I will do as Governor, and it´s what I´m doing on my campaign. This team combines years of political experience with a deep knowledge of Connecticut and what we need to do to get our state back on offense.”

Joe Abbey, Campaign Manager — Abbey brings more than ten years of federal and state level campaign experience to the Lamont team. In 2001, he worked to elect Mark Warner for Governor of Virginia, later serving as Deputy Campaign Manager on Warner’s Senate victory in 2008, and has managed Congressional campaigns in California and Ohio. Most recently, Abbey served as the Campaign Manager for Creigh Deeds´ gubernatorial campaign, scoring an upset victory in the 2009 Virginia primary.

Jared Kupiec, Deputy Campaign Manager/Political Director — A native of Woodstock, Kupiec graduated from Eastern Connecticut State University in 2001. He has served as campaign manager for four state senate and several municipal campaigns, where he managed budget and fundraising operations, field and outreach, and strategy and messaging development. Prior to joining the Lamont campaign, he worked at the Connecticut General Assembly as the clerk of the Government Administration and Elections committee and the administrator of the Municipal Ethics Task Force and Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes.

Jen Just, Director of Scheduling – Just served as Obama for America´s Coordinator for Connecticut´s 3rd Congressional District. She was hired as the Obama campaign´s only paid staffer in Connecticut for the General Election in 2008, and in 2009 was hired again as the State Director for Organizing for America. Prior to her campaign work, Just was a TV Producer covering government and politics.

Justine Sessions, Communications Director – A native of New Hartford, Sessions joins the Lamont team after five years on Capitol Hill, where she served in Senator Dodd´s press office, working both in D.C. and traveling with the Senator in Connecticut, and most recently as his Banking Committee Press Secretary.

Gabe Rosenberg, New Media Director – A graduate of UCONN Law School and Southern Connecticut State University, Rosenberg was a writer for the influential Connecticut blog CTLocalPolitics.com, covering Lamont´s historic win over Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary. Prior to joining the Lamont team, Rosenberg served as New Media Director for the Connecticut Democratic Party.

Wade Gibson, Policy Director – Gibson, a Yale Law student, comes to the campaign after serving as an energy and environment policy staffer for Representative Lloyd Doggett on Capitol Hill and working in Mayor Cory Booker’s Department of Economic and Housing Development in Newark.

Becca Slutzky, Field Director – Slutzky comes to the Lamont campaign after working last year´s race for Governor in Virginia, first for Terry McAuliffe and then as Deputy Political Director for Creigh Deeds. During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Slutzky did more than a year of field work with Hillary Clinton´s campaign and worked to help Obama win the general election as Regional Field Director of the Virginia Coordinated Campaign.

Seth Bannon, Operations Director – Raised in Guilford, Bannon is a veteran of Lamont´s 2006 Senate campaign. He served as Deputy State Director for Students for Barack Obama when he was a student at Harvard before working field on the Obama campaign in Ohio during the General Election. Bannon was most recently the Operations Director and Regional Field Director for Alan Khazei’s run for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

Lamont has also hired seasoned political advisors:

Media Consultant Doc Schweitzer of the Campaign Group

Pollster Fred Yang of Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group

Direct Mail Consultant Jim Crounse of the Mack-Crounse Group

From: Alex Johnston, ConnCAN
To: Members of the Connecticut General Assembly Education Committee
Date: March 12, 2010

Since Connecticut was rejected in the first round of the $4 billion Race the Top competition one week ago yesterday, you have made amazing strides in raising a number of bills that speak directly to the changes that Connecticut needs to make to be competitive when the Round 2 applications are due on June 1, 2010.

Over the past week, my team and I have been busy analyzing the characteristics of the 16 states selected as finalists with particular attention paid to the handful of states most likely to be winners when Round 1 concludes in early April.

As the below analysis makes clear, incremental gains are unlikely to put us in a position as a state to be competitive in Round 2. With competition this tough, we simply can’t afford to leave anything on the table, and to secure enough points to win our share of these Race to the Top funds, we must pass legislation in all three areas where we have fallen behind the frontrunner states: measuring effectiveness, superstar principals, and money follows the child.

1) MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS

A state-of-the-art growth model that links to teacher and principal evaluation is worth 83 points, and using this growth model to improve the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs would earn the state another 14 points.

The Finalists

Our analysis of finalists’ applications revealed that leading states already have the ability to track individual student achievement and have made or are planning to make student achievement growth a significant part of teacher evaluation.

In fact, nearly 70 percent of the finalists (11 out of the 16) have data systems with a teacher identifier that allows evaluators to match individual teachers and students , something Connecticut still doesn’t have in place. And half of the finalists explicitly committed to making student achievement growth worth at least 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation.
Rhode Island went a few steps further, by making it 51 percent; directing districts not to allow a student to be taught by more than one year by a teacher deemed “ineffective;” and prohibiting districts from assigning ineffective teachers to low-income, low-performing or high-minority schools. Two additional states required that student growth meet clearly defined expectations in order for a teacher to earn an “effective” rating. Louisiana has used a value-added model to track student achievement and evaluate teachers for three years and has already experimented with performance-based compensation in 41 school districts.

Although it may seem like the frontrunner states have a strong head start on Connecticut, it is worth noting that several finalists passed recent legislation on teacher evaluation to strengthen their application ahead of the Round 1 deadline. For example, Illinois’ state legislature helped their state secure a finalist spot by passing a reform requiring all districts in the state to incorporate student improvement into teacher and principal evaluations. In Tennessee, a state with an 18-year history of tracking longitudinal student data through its Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS), the governor signed legislation that requires districts to base at least 50 percent of their teacher evaluations on student test results and 35 percent on data from TVAAS. Since Tennessee is one of only 6 finalist states that meet all ten of the Data Quality Campaign’s “essential elements” for state data systems , this last-minute legislation likely helped push the state into the lead in this competition.

Where Connecticut Stands

Connecticut’s current Race to the Top application promises that the state will take on a long list of actions to measure effectiveness and ensure that we have great teachers in our classrooms and great leaders in our schools. In doing so, however, Connecticut revealed a major policy weakness: as a state, we don’t have a trusted system to benchmark student progress against clear expectations. By contrast, Race to the Top leaders used their state applications to describe established data systems to measure individual student growth, and the frontrunner states already use that data to evaluate teachers and principals.

Raised Bills that Make a Difference

The Education Committee is now considering two bills, S.B. 440, and H.B. 5491 (Section 3) that would allow Connecticut to take immediate action so that we have a solid policy to measure effectiveness in place before the next round of applications.

Connecticut needs a data system that measures individual student growth and links it to teachers and principals. These two bills will create a new system that will allow us to begin to both measure the effectiveness of teachers and principals and the programs that train them.

The proposed legislation includes specific deadlines for the State Department of Education to:
• Establish a student growth measurement model.
• Assign unique identifiers to teachers in Connecticut.
• Assign unique identifiers to school leaders in Connecticut.
• Attach a unique teacher or principal training institution identifier to the unique teacher or school leader identifier of every graduate of an in-state teacher training institution.
• Gather and publicly report on an annual basis (in a non-personally identifiable fashion) the teacher and principal effectiveness data for each in-state teacher principal credentialing program.

The proposed legislation also requires local and regional school boards to incorporate student achievement as a significant factor in their teacher and principal evaluation programs. Teacher and principal evaluation would not become a mandatory subject of bargaining, but this proposal does call for local school boards to work with teachers, administrators, their bargaining representatives and other stakeholders to modify the teacher and principal evaluation programs to meet this new requirement.

If a local school board fails to modify its evaluation program to incorporate student achievement, it will be required to adopt a model evaluation plan to be developed by an advisory council of experts and stake-holders convened by the State Board of Education. Under the proposed legislation, the State Board of Education is required to develop guidelines to assist boards of education incorporate student performance into teacher and principal evaluation programs. In addition, the state is required to develop and implement a variety of data collection and evaluation support systems to assist school districts effectively implement student achievement as a factor in their programs.

Subject to funding availability, all school districts will modify and implement their revised teacher and principal evaluation programs prior to January 1, 2012.

2) SUPERSTAR PRINCIPALS

Strong alternative routes to certification for both teachers and principals are worth up to 21 points in the competition.

The Finalists

All 16 Race to the Top Round 1 finalists already have a policy or program creating an alternate route for principals. Frontrunner states paid particular attention to ensuring that their policies and programs met the characteristics specified in the Race to the Top application , including: selective admissions criteria, rigorous standards, intensive training and ongoing support. In fact, 75 percent of finalists meet at least 4 out of the 5 criteria for a strong alternative route. For example:

• Colorado and Florida are among a handful of states that have passed policies allowing local school districts to create alternative routes to principal licensure. Florida’s program allows school districts to create alternate educational leadership programs that take high-performing teachers or executives through an intensive, job-embedded fast-track program.
• Louisiana has worked with highly regarded organizations such as New Leaders for New Schools and has developed not one, but three, alternative paths for principals that include options such for qualified candidates, such as: pass the state’s School Leaders Licensure Exam, complete extensive (240+) hours of educational leadership experience, pass rigorous screening by approved provider, and complete an educational leader/practitioner residency program.

A few states, such as Delaware and Georgia, already had a policy in place that allowed for alternate paths, but recognized that improvements were needed. In Delaware, Innovative Schools, a state-based nonprofit, has signed a letter of intent with the New York City Leadership Academy (NYCLA) to establish a recruitment, training and selection program for school leaders called Leaders for Innovative Schools. This program will entail: a rigorous selection of potential principals (teachers and other leaders) from within Delaware and nationally; a 12-month intensive training program; placement assistance in high-need schools; and ongoing support, including coaching and mentorship during the first two years leading a school.

Georgia proposed new rules for alternate paths that will open the field to non-educators; eliminate master’s degrees as prerequisite for becoming a principal; allow a wide variety of high-quality, vetted alternative certification providers, including New Leaders for New Schools and school districts. Some Georgia districts, such as Gwinnett County already have strong principal alternative certification programs in place.

Where Connecticut Stands

While Connecticut has had a statute for alternative routes to certification for principals on the books since 2006, it has never been implemented. Nor is this existing but unused section of statute responsive to the five criteria laid out by the Race to the Top competition and to the essence of what a quality alternative route to certification should look like. This weakness will likely cost our state critical Race to the Top points.

Raised Bills that Make a Difference

The Education Committee is now considering a bill, H.B. No. 5421, that would significantly increase our chances of a successful Race to the Top application in Round 2. The proposed legislation would direct the Departments of Higher Education and Education to establish alternative certification pathways for principals that open the way for some of Connecticut’s most effective classroom teachers to accelerate their path to school leadership under the mentorship of experienced principals by:
• Using selective admissions standards based on a teachers’ track record in raising student achievement.
• Allowing providers operating independently from institutions of higher education to train principals.
• Not requiring applicants to have more than a bachelor’s degree.
• Allowing participants to demonstrate mastery of coursework by exams or experience.
• Providing supervised, school-based experiences through a district-funded one-year residency as an assistant principal under the guidance of a certified principal.
• Allowing at least two years of successful work experience involving management to substitute for the one- year residency.
• Including as a condition of program admission not more than 30 months of previous teaching experience.

At a hearing before the Committee on March 8, representatives from ConnCAN, Teach for America, and the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) testified in support of this bill.

3) MONEY FOLLOWS THE CHILD

Race to the Top guidelines allot a full 40 points for states that ensure “successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools.”

The Finalists

Race to the Top frontrunner states have opened up access to charters, improved charter financing policies and raised or eliminated limits on the number of charter schools and/or charter school students. Half of the Round 1 finalists have no limits on the number of charter schools in the state , and one-third of the finalist states have taken action on charter schools within the last few months to improve their charter policies and chances in Race to the Top.

Some finalist states are long recognized leaders in helping create conditions needed for high achieving charter schools to thrive:
• Colorado has a strong charter school law with no cap on the number of schools and with funding for charter school facilities.
• Florida also has a strong charter school law that has enabled the state to open more than 400 charters serving almost 130,000 students, with no cap on the number of such schools.
Several finalists enacted critical policies at the last minute to boost their odds in Race to the Top. For example:
• Illinois’ state legislature lifted the state’s cap on charters and approved 60 new charter schools, boosting the number of charter school slots by 13,000.
• Louisiana no longer caps the number of charter schools allowed in the state, and has used charter schools as a central part of its strategy for rebuiding the public school system in New Orleans.
• Massachusetts recently passed a bill to increase management flexibility for low-performing schools and raise the spending cap on charter schools. This new law strengthened what was already a strong charter school policy, ranked 6 out of 40 state charter laws by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
• Tennessee’s state legislature passed legislation last June loosening restrictions on public charter schools to allow for more schools and more funding.

Where Connecticut Stands

The Race to the Top guidelines clearly favor states that have taken specific steps to ensure “successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools.” Although our state is home to several high-performing charter schools , the growth of these schools is limited by Connecticut’s antiquated school finance system—a system that has become fiscally unsustainable and is an obstacle to innovation. Connecticut remains one of just three states where charter schools rely on a separate line-item appropriation in the state budget every year. Under this system, charter schools in Connecticut receive only about 75 percent as much per-pupil funding as traditional public schools, and enrollment caps limit access to these free schools, which serve mostly low-income children. Our existing charter laws significantly undermine our competitiveness in Race to the Top.
Raised Bills that Make a Difference
The State Education Committee is now considering a bill, H.B. 5493, that directly addresses the weakest aspect of our state’s charter policies: the way charter schools are funded. The proposed legislation would:
• Eliminate the use of the annual state appropriation process to fund charter schools, and adopt a “money follows the child” funding mechanism.
• Base funding for charter schools on the average amount spent to educate students in their school district if they attended a traditional public school, calculated on an “apples to apples” basis by correcting for transportation and other costs which charter schools do not incur, and not including federal funding for which charter schools are eligible for on their own.
• Reduce state equalization aid grant payments to cities or towns based on this calculation, allowing funding to flow from the state to the public charter schools.
• Provide “impact aid” to cities and towns if equalization aid grants are negatively impacted, phased over a three-year period.

Recognizing the extraordinarily challenging financial circumstances facing both school districts and the state, this transition would be deferred until the state’s next two-year budget cycle, and would be phased in with transitional aid to districts over multiple years. The proposed legislation also provides each charter school with a per-pupil facilities allowance, based on the statewide average of district expenditures and debt service per pupil for the construction, renovation, purchase, acquisition and improvement of land, buildings and equipment.

The proposed legislation would also make charter schools responsible for providing special education services to their students on substantially the same basis as boards of education. Responsibility for out-of-district special education placements would remain with the school district. Charter schools are already eligible to receive special education grants under the current law. The proposed legislation preserves this right, and would also make charter schools eligible to the same extent as boards of education to receive any other state grant.

SUMMARY

ConnCAN’s analysis of Round 1 finalist applications showed that the competition is tough. It is clear that Connecticut must go after every single point to earn a spot at the finish line. To ensure success in Round 2, Connecticut must align itself with the frontrunner states by taking action in these three critical areas: measuring effectiveness, superstar principals, and money follows the child. With the largest achievement gap in the country and an enormous budget deficit, no state needs to win this Race to the Top more than we do.

NOTES

1. Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Tennessee.
2. Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia (for currently tested subjects and grades), Illinois, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Tennessee. Two additional states (Kentucky and New York) committed to making student growth account for 30-50% of teacher evaluation.
3. Delaware and North Carolina. Note: Delaware also states that teachers whose students meet these expectations cannot receive the lowest evaluation rating.
4. Source: http://educationnext.org/evaluating-the-rtt-finalists/
5. Only 6 of 16 finalists (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee) have all 10 of the Data Quality Campaign’s “10 Essential Elements” of a longitudinal data system. Source: www.dataqualitycampaign.org
6. The Race to the Top guidelines define alternate certification programs as those that can: (a) can be provided by various types of qualified providers, including both institutions of higher education and other providers operating independently from institutions of higher education; (b) are selective in accepting candidates; (c) provide supervised, school-based experiences and ongoing support such as effective mentoring and coaching; (d) significantly limit the amount of coursework required or have options to test out of courses; and (e) upon completion, award the same level of certification that traditional preparation programs award upon completion.
7. Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina. Source: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools: http://www.publiccharters.org/charterlaws/component/1
8. Five finalists recently lifted caps on charters in response to Race to the Top: Illinois, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, www.publiccharters.org/node/2454.
9. For more information, see: http://www.conncan.org/sites/default/files/research/CTCharterLaw-RTTT2010-Web-2.pdf

This morning his I attended a press conference with Representative Barbara Lambert held at IHOP to highlight the public health risk created when food service workers lack paid sick days.

That’s me in the rear with the hat, Lindsay Farrell to the right of me, and Rep. Lambert to the left of the sign.

Representative Barbara Lambert shared stories of workers who’d lost their jobs when they called out sick.

“No one should get fired just because they got sick,” said Representative Lambert. “But for far too many food service workers, if you get sick, the only choices are risking your job or coming to work sick and serving our food. Small employers will be exempt and only those with 50 or more employees would be required to comply with this legislation. Allowing a truly ill employee to take sick time off is the right thing to do.”

Rep. Barbara Lambert at the Rotary Lobster Bake with Genivieve Salvador and Rep. Paul Davis.

Paid sick days advocates at the press conference distributed mock-up menus with dishes like “Chicken Snot Pie” and “Grilled Sneeze and Tomato.”

“When people have to go to work sick, it shouldn’t surprise us that illness spreads,” said Lindsay Farrell, Legislative Director of Connecticut Working Families. “Almost 80% of food service workers lack paid sick days. Think about that next time you’re out to eat.”

An estimated 600,000 workers in Connecticut lack paid sick days. Some of the largest groups of workers without paid sick days include workers in food service, retail and healthcare. 78% of employees working in food service and accommodations lack paid sick days. When those workers can’t afford to miss pay and come to work sick, they risk spreading illness to their coworkers and to the general public.

According to the Center for Disease Control, there are 23 million ‘norovirus’ infections (often called ‘stomach flu’) every year in America – about half of which are attributable to ill food service workers.

The Labor Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly approved a measure to create a basic workplace standard for paid sick days. The bill (SB 63) would allow workers at business with more than 50 employees to earn paid sick time – up to 5 days per year. The bill explicitly protects flexibility for employers who already have paid leave policies. A similar bill passed in the House of Representatives last year, but wasn’t called for a vote in the Senate.

A new study published by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) drew a connection between the lack of paid sick days and the spread of H1N1, the so-called “swine flu” virus. The report, “Sick at Work: Infected Employees in the Workplace During the H1N1 Pandemic” made the following findings:

• An estimated 8 million American employees came to work while infected with H1N1.
• An estimated 7 million people contracted the illness from a sick co-worker.
• Workers without paid sick days were far more likely to come to work while infected with H1N1.

In 2008, it made headlines across Connecticut when dozens of UCONN students caught a “norovirus” after a banquet at Adam’s Mill Restaurant in Manchester. A subsequent investigation by the Connecticut Department of Public Health attributed the spread to a single ill food service worker – the salad preparer. The DPH’s Connecticut Epidemiologist publication recommended, “Correct handling of cold foods, strict hand washing after using the bathroom, and paid sick leave may substantially reduce foodborne transmission of Noroviruses.“

Video of the event, courtesy of Aldon Hynes:

part 1: http://qik.com/video/5513205
part 2: http://qik.com/video/5513384

In the first Federal trial of its kind in the United States, Pfizer biotech worker Becky McClain will get her day in court to challenge the dangerous and unhealthy conditions which she alleged that Pfizer Inc. subjected her to while working at the Pfizer Groton Connecticut facility as a molecular biologist. McClain is suing for free speech and retaliation by Pfizer. Her case is being heard in Hartford CT Federal Courthouse today with US Federal Judge Vanessa Bryant.

McClain was the health and safety officer at the Groton, Connecticut Pfizer plant. She raised serious public health and safety concerns over her working conditions while working on stem cells at the facility. Pfizer, the largest drug company in the world with revenue of $48 billion a year allegedly refused to address her safety concerns despite repeated requests from McClain.

McClain alleged she was exposed to infectious genetically engineered viruses making her sick while the company ignored her safety complaints and refused to provide her with a safe work environment. McClain went to the workers comp system and was told that the Connecticut workers compensation system did not have jurisdiction to order Pfizer to release the records that were involved in her exposure on the job. These records provided identification in her exposure in her case making it impossible for her to show the causes of her injuries on the job. McClain was lucky enough to know that she had an exposure but other workers may not have similar opportunities to know where and when they were exposed. Workers in the industry are not provided information about where and when they may have received their exposures in the industry.

This case also shows a major flaw for workers in the biotech industry who have to prove where they got injured in order to receive workers compensation. The ability to prove where you have been injured when working in biotechnology industry due to the lack of standards, labor of regulation by OSHA and other government agencies and secrecy and confidentiality agreements required of all employees has been severely impacted. Workers high tech industries such as biotech and nanotech are unable to prove where they got injured and as a result, they are not eligible for workers compensation and end up going to SSI and other Local, Federal and State agencies for their medical care and compensation. The means a whole category of workers in these new technology industries are unable to get medical coverage and compensation under the present workers compensation structure. This cost shifting and limiting of the liability of Pfizer and other companies has resulted in government agencies having to take care of the corporation and insurance companies liabilities. This is a important and growing issue for the American people as well as the public health care questions.

The company also allegedly retaliated against McClain for making complaints to OSHA about these serious public and worker health hazards and eventually fired her.

Background Information On The Becky McClain Case
Becky McClain, former Pfizer molecular biologist

Dangers in Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Lack of Safety Oversight and Lack of Worker Rights

http://www.workersmemorialday.org/documents/McClain.htm

Becky McClain vs. Pfizer Inc.

http://i.bnet.com/blogs/mcclain-complaint.pdf

Trial Set for Pfizer Scientist Who Alleged Virus Was Loose in the Lunchroom

http://industry.bnet.com/pharma/10006036/trial-set-for-pfizer-scientist-who-alleged-virus-was-loose-in-the-lunchroom/?tag=main;content

Pfizer Scientist blames Pfizer for Illness On The Job

http://www.theday.com/article/20100119/BIZ02/301199973/1044

Multinational Criticized Over Worksite Safety

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/10/113_53466.html

Blood, phlegm and tears and the case of biotech worker David Bell

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=870890

David Bell tells his story

Statement of Sandi Trend, Mother of Injured BioTech Worker, David Bell

http://www.workersmemorialday.org/documents/Trend.htm

David Bell and the his illness from biotech

http://www.biotechawareness.com/

Voters in Connecticut’s 4th Congressional district are concerned about special interest influence on members of Congress and expect Congress to fix our broken political system, according to polling released today by Connecticut Common Cause.

The poll, which was conducted by SurveyUSA for Common Cause, MoveOn.org Political Action, and Public Campaign Action Fund, found that voters believe that Democrats and Republicans have done too little to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington, DC, and that they want Representative Himes to work to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform.

“Voters want Congress to act quickly to fix our broken political system,” said Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director of Common Cause in Connecticut. “Representative Himes must be commended for his co-sponsorship of this legislation, and should know that taking bold steps to reform the way Washington works is good politics.”

The survey also found that 80 percent of voters in the 4th District believe that members of Congress are overly influenced by campaign contributors, and 63 percent are opposed to the recent Supreme Court decision lifting certain restrictions on corporate and union spending to support or defeat candidates.

The Fair Elections Now Act would allow candidates to run competitive campaigns for office on a blend of limited Fair Elections funding and donations of $100 or less. Sponsored by Representative John Larson (D-Conn.), the Fair Elections Now Act has the broad bipartisan support of 140 House members.

The poll of 523 likely voters in the 4th Congressional District of Connecticut was conducted by SurveyUSA from March 10-March 14, 2010. The full memo can be found at www.fairelectionsnow.org/2010march-polling.