Jonathan Kantrowitz

He’s completely lost me now –

Daniela Altimari has the story on The Capitol Watch Courant blog:

According to Judicial Branch records, Alpert is “administratively suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Practice Book Section 2-79(a) for non-payment of the client security fund fee due June 15, 2008,” branch spokeswoman Rhonda Stearley-Hebert said in an email.

The order of administrative suspension took effect on June 16, 2009, she added.

Alpert seems to think non-payment is appropriate because he doesn’t practice law, but it’s not. I don’t practice law either, but I’m required to pay:

An attorney is not exempt from the fee because he or she practices out of state, or because he or she does not actively practice law. Only those attorneys who have retired, resigned, who have served on active duty in the armed forces of the United States for a period of more than six months during the calendar year, or who have been disbarred, are exempt from payment of the fee. Attorneys have “retired” only if they have complied with the provisions of Practice Book Section 2-55 and Section 51-81b(g) of the Connecticut General Statutes. (Attorney Retirement Notice – Form JD-CL-68). A partial, fifty percent exemption is available to attorneys who do not engage in the practice of law as an occupation and have not earned and do not expect to earn more than $450.00 in legal fees or other compensation for services involving the practice of law during the calendar year. Please note that if you engage in the practice of law as an occupation outside of Connecticut, you do not qualify for the partial exemption. If being an attorney is a factor in an individual’s employment, such attorney is deemed engaged in the practice of law as an occupation for purposes of the partial exemption and does not qualify for the partial exemption. An attorney claiming a partial exemption must complete an exemption claim form and submit the form with their payment. (Claim of Exemption, Client Security Fund Fee – Form JD-GC-14E)

So what should Mr. Alpert do?

What should I do if my license to practice law has been administratively suspended for non-payment of the annual client security fund fee pursuant to Practice Book Sections 2-70 and 2-79(a)?

Practice Book Sections 2-70 and 2-79(a) provide that the license to practice law of an attorney who fails to pay the annual client security fund fee may be administratively suspended until such time as the fee is paid. If your license to practice law has been administratively suspended for non-payment of the annual client security fund fee, you should contact the office of the Client Security Fund Committee to obtain information about the amount of the past due fee or fees owed. Payment may be made online by attorneys registered with the Judicial Branch for access to E-Services at www.jud.ct.gov, or a check or money order in the amount of the past due fees should be sent to Client Security Fund, P.O. Box 1379, Hartford, Connecticut 06143-1379. Your juris number should be included on the check or money order. Upon receipt of a check or money order in the correct amount, or payment online, you will be reinstated. For additional information, the office of the Client Security Fund Committee may be contacted by e-mail at Security.Fund@jud.ct.gov, or by telephone at (860)-568-3450.

He should pay the fees he owes and retire from practicing law and running for office.

The Friends of the Fairfield Public Library are proud to sponsor the 2010 One Book One Town Signature Event, An Evening with Luis Alberto Urrea.

Join the Friends, and meet the Pulitzer Prize-nominated author of Into the Beautiful North when he visits Fairfield, CT on March 24, 2010 at 7:00pm at Fairfield Ward High School. Mr. Urrea will discuss his influences and writing, and will be on hand to sign copies of his book.

To register for the evening please click here.

Democrat Mary Glassman, who has formed an exploratory committee for Governor, has raised over $105,000 in the nine weeks since forming her committee.

“I am thrilled by the level of support I have received since I began exploring a run for Governor two months ago,” said Glassman. “It is clear that Connecticut voters are looking for a proven problem solver who can tackle the tough budget issues facing our state on day one, that’s what I intend to do.” Glassman continued, “the tremendous support I have received from across the state demonstrates that voters are responding to my vision of making state government work for all the people of Connecticut,”

Since forming her committee in January, Mary Glassman has received contributions from 1,187 donors under Connecticut’s public finance law.

Glassman is a native of New Britain and serving her sixth term as First Selectman of Simsbury. During her career Mary has served at the state capital and as an advocate for CT Voices for Children. Mary worked her way through the University of Connecticut majoring in journalism. She earned a law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. Mary and her husband Andy have three grown children.

Watch it here:

From Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch:

Finch gave Himes much of the credit for securing funds to at least begin the process of replacing the bridge, which, the mayor said, is needed to help make the long-stalled Steel Point redevelopment project on the lower East Side, a reality.

“For a long time we were neglected until Congressman Himes was elected..,” Finch declared.

Congress Street Bridge to come down

Just days after Connecticut was rejected from round one of Race to the Top, lawmakers have taken the first concrete step to boost Connecticut’s competitiveness for the Race to the Top by introducing a bill to establish alternative certification pathways for school administrators.

Just like Teach for America created an alternative pathway for some of Connecticut’s most promising college graduates to teach in urban schools, H.B. 5421 would establish an alternative certification route for Connecticut’s principal corps.

The bill will have a public hearing in front of the education committee at 3:30pm today.

Proposed legislation would direct the Departments of Higher Education and Education to establish alternative certification pathways for principals by:

• Using selective admissions standards.
• 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.

15 states and the District of Columbia will advance as finalists for phase 1 of the Race to the Top competition. Race to the Top is the Department’s $4.35 billion effort to dramatically re-shape America’s educational system to better engage and prepare our students for success in a competitive 21st century economy and workplace.

States competing for Race to the Top funds were asked to document past education reform successes, as well as outline plans to: extend reforms using college and career-ready standards and assessments; build a workforce of highly effective educators; create educational data systems to support student achievement; and turn around their lowest-performing schools.

The phase 1 finalists are:

Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee

The 16 finalists were chosen from among the 40 states and the District of Columbia that submitted applications for phase 1. Winners for phase 1 will be chosen from among the 16 finalists and announced in April. Applications for phase 2 will be due on June 1 of this year, with finalists announced in August and winners in September. The only states prohibited from applying in phase 2 are those that receive awards in phase 1.

How Finalists Were Chosen

Panels of 5 peer reviewers independently read and scored each state’s application. The panels then met in February to finalize their comments and submit scores. Each state’s score is the average of the five independent reviewers’ scores.

The Department of Education arranged the applications in order from high to low scores and determined which applicants were the strongest competitors to invite back based on “natural breaks”—i.e. scoring gaps in the line-up. The top 16 applications were then selected as finalists. All 41 applicants from phase 1 will receive their peer reviewers’ comments and scores after the winners are announced in April. The Department will post the scores and applications on its Web site.

Choosing Winners from Among the Finalists

The finalists will be invited to DC in mid-March to present their proposals to the panel that reviewed their applications in depth during the initial stage, and to engage in Q&A discussions with the reviewers.

The purpose of the finalist stage is to allow reviewers to ensure that the state has the understanding, knowledge, capacity, and the will to truly deliver on what is proposed. The presentations will be videotaped and posted for viewing on the Department’s website at the end of Phase 1.

At the conclusion of the presentations, the reviewers will meet again to discuss each application, finalize scores and comments, and submit them to the Department. Again, the final score for each application will be an average of the five peer reviewers’ scores. The scores will be arranged in order from high to low and presented to Secretary Duncan for final selection.

Number of Winners & Award Sizes

The number of phase 1 winners will be determined by the strength of the applications. While the department does not have a predetermined amount of money to award in each phase of the competition, we expect no more than half of the money will be awarded in phase 1 to ensure a robust competition in phase 2.

“We are setting a high bar and we anticipate very few winners in phase 1. But this isn’t just about the money. It’s about collaboration among all stakeholders, building a shared agenda, and challenging ourselves to improve the way our students learn. I feel that every state that has applied is a winner—and the biggest winners of all are the students,” Duncan said.

Of the $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funds provided under the Recovery Act, the Department will distribute approximately $4 billion directly to states to drive education reform and $350M to consortia of states that compete in a separate competition to create new college and career-ready assessments. The assessment competition is still in the design phase.

Based on Race to the Top’s early positive effect on national education reform, President Obama proposed to continue the program next year by requesting $1.35 billion in the Administration’s FY 2011 budget.

Here’s what Jim had to say today:

It has been a very long year working on comprehensive health care reform. Over 60 town halls and health care events, much discussion, and historic votes in the House and the Senate have led us to where we are now. And if you haven’t seen this recent report on Anthem’s drastic increases in Connecticut – state regulators approving a 20% increase after Anthem requested a 32% increase – I recommend you look into it. It shows we need comprehensive reform now more than ever.

As we come closer to passing health care reform, I wanted to highlight a crucial victory we achieved in the House of Representatives two weeks ago – repealing the anti-trust exemption that health care companies have enjoyed for so long. This act will improve choice and competition for health care consumers across the board, leading to better decisions and better care. The unfair exemption drives up costs and, left unchecked, will ensure that we continue to pay too much for too little when it comes to our health care.

We must celebrate important moments like this. It was anticipation of these victories – truly changing the way Washington works and helping middle class families – that drove me to campaign for Congress three years ago. We have now empowered regulators to hold health care insurers accountable for their actions and righted a long-standing wrong.