Connecticut
Post posts about what is happening in the State of Connecticut.
#ff @grovenh
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Fri, 09/10/2010 - 11:28@RetailGoddesses @SheSoSocial @giuliag @jwierin @derekkoch @MatthewBrowning @joecascio @timtracey @leecruz @Mertens4Senate @TTHofficial @MyConnecticut
Last night, I attended the opening of The Grove, a coworking space in New Haven, CT. Many of my friends have used coworking spaces in New York and San Francisco and I've hoped that a coworking space would open up here in Connecticut.
Coworking fits hand in hand with social media, so it was great to see many friends from various social media activities there. There was the standard group of people from SocialWebWeek, @RetailGoddesses @SheSoSocial @giuliag @jwierin @derekkoch and @MatthewBrowning. Although I don't remember if I ran into @MyConnecticut as part of the Social Web Week activities, Courtney is very much a social web person and I would include her in this group.
There was the tweetcrawl and podcamp crew, @joecascio and @timtracey. There was the nonprofit and advocacy crew, @leecruz and @TTHofficial. @timtracey also sort of fits in that space with his Yougottacall project. Also part of this group was Nathan Bixby.
In the political sphere a couple friends from Governor's Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign were there as was John Mertens who is running for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, @Mertens4Senate.
Also there were Matt and Lindsay Branscombe. Lindsay made a splash at the technologists and entrepreneurs meet during Social Web Week when she reminded everyone of the importance of design and it was good to have an arts and design perspective reflected not only in the photographs on the wall of the Grove but also by some of the participants.
I'm probably missing a bunch of other people that I spoke with at the opening of The Grove last night, but it gives a good flavor the variety of people that were there. It helps illustrate why I believe coworking is so important. It is when you connect with people from a bunch of different viewpoints that you can gain the insights to make whatever project you are working on more successful. The Grove is setting out to be a place where connections like this are made. They got off to a great start and I wish them well.
Who's on the Ballot in Connecticut?
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 11:38With two months until the General Election in Connecticut, and most of the filing deadlines passed, the final slate of candidates is shaping up and it seems like a good time to look at the process of getting on the ballot in Connecticut. The recent court decision in Stamford of James Caterbone v. Susan Bysiewicz provides all the more reason to look at this.
Let's start off by taking a general look at the process. Connecticut election law provides a few different ways that candidates can get on the ballot. The first is to become the candidate of a major party. Currently, Connecticut has two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. To be a major party, the party's candidate for Governor in the most recent regular gubernatorial election must have received at least 20% of the vote. The other way to be a major party is to have at least 20% of the people who have registered as belonging to any party register with the party.
Going Meta - Student Speech, Education, Sharks, Lady Gaga, Richard Blumenthal, Linda McMahon and Colin McEnroe
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 16:39Recently I saw a cartoon that read "Shcools are fer preyin, not fer ejucashun". While the focus of the cartoon was on how conservative Christians are affecting school boards, it actually reflects a much larger issue. What is the purpose of public education in twenty first century America?
Is it to convey information? To teach students the proper respect for authority? Is it to prepare students to be good future employees? What role does teaching critical thinking play? What if this critical thinking encourages students to challenge authority? Where does media education fit in? How does it relate to the future of journalism? Where does civics fit? How does all of this relate to having a properly functioning democracy?
A few different articles have crossed my desk that tie into all of this, so I am going to go all meta for a moment and look at these articles, as well as the stories beneath the stories.
The first message I want to look at is about a Free Webinar for Board of Education members. It starts off with:
What would you do if the Assistant Principal of your high school threatened to quit if something is not done about a vulgar parody of him on MySpace? The parody portrays him as a violent pedophile and lists the names of his family and his address. Should your school board launch an investigation? If the perpetrator is a student, can you impose discipline?School districts across the country are being asked to address student misbehavior in the electronic world – both at school and away from school. When formulating an action plan or policy to address cyber-misbehavior, you need to consider state bullying laws, harassment liability, constitutional limitations on policy and action, and when law enforcement should be involved.
What I find strikingly missing is what I like to call the 'pedagogical imperative'. To me, it sounds like a wonderful teaching moment which the Assistant Principal completely missed. It comes back to the underlying purpose of public education in twenty first century America. If the purpose is to teach students to respect, and not question authority, then the questions of how to reply may need to be more focused on legal aspects. However, if the purpose of education is to teach critical thinking, effective communications and other skills, then a more creative response is called for. If I were in charge at the school in question, I would probably have told the Assistant Principal, you can't quit, you're fired.
The message went on to say that the webinar "will discuss what the school district did in the above situation and how the court ruled in J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District and Layshock v. Hermitage School District."
The ACLU has a webpage up about LAYSHOCK V. HERMITAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT which includes a link to a PDF of the offending website. The criticism of the Assistant Principal? That his biggest weakness and his biggest fears were students laughing at him. His reactions to the website appear to substantiate the allegations of the website. While I imagine the webinar is going to be very interesting and cover a lot of very important legal issues, I would love to see a webinar on more creative approaches to these issues.
Related to this is an email I received from a mailing list addressing the future of journalism. It pointed to Esther Wojcicki's article Journalism: English for the 21st Century.
Bill Densmore, who forwarded the article to the list highlighted several important paragraphs. The first two that he cited tie back very much to the Layshock case and many other cases about students rights.
"Most schools do not allow their students access to an uncensored Web; this is a trait we usually ascribe to China and rarely acknowledge about ourselves."
"The Hazelwood decision is now two decades old. An entire generation has lived its entire academic life—and is now moving into the professional ranks—under Hazelwood’s influence. Far too many of our future journalists, citizens and leaders unquestioningly accept that school administrators—government officials—should have the authority to dictate what they read, write and talk about. What this means for the future of press freedom in America remains unknown …"
The final paragraph that he quoted puts it very nicely into context,
"America is a nation that thrives on independence and on the entrepreneurial spirit. Yet our schools’ curricula do just the opposite by driving teachers to teach to the test and kids to be effective multiple choice test takers. Let’s offer our kids at least one opportunity in school each day in which they truly act with an independence of mind and with freedom to speak to the issues in their lives. That course should be journalism."
Other paragraphs went into details about what this might look like:
"The easiest way to pass on the skills and purpose of journalism is to have an online program, which is, after all, the future"
"Today’s journalism curriculum can revolutionize English education by making the writing curriculum relevant and exciting. In the process, it can also train an entire generation of citizens—many of whom will be doing what journalists do today—to be responsible contributing members of the digital society."
"Journalism also teaches kids how to collaborate both online and offline and how to work effectively with their peers both as leaders and as participants. These are skills employers are seeking in prospective employees."
It seems like an appropriate response to the Layshock case, instead of giving him a 10-day, out-of-school suspension, ordering him to finish high school in the Alternative Education Program and forbidding him from attending his own graduation in the spring, the school might have found that his education was incomplete and required him to take a course in journalism, similar to what Ms. Wojcicki describes. Such a course would explore the rights and responsibilities of the press in our society, including legal issues, such as defamation as well as how to voice criticisms more effectively. This reflects some of the ideas that I've presented in the past about the Avery Doninger case here in Connecticut.
Which takes me to the final message I want to explore. Today, Colin McEnroe wrote this on my Facebook page:
Aldon, I'm headed to Truro Sunday, sharks and hurricanes permitting.
You might find it interesting to listen and/or call in tomorrow as we discuss this:
Traffic Problems | American Journalism Review
When I read the title, I was tempted to respond back that we ran into very little traffic either going to or coming from Cape Cod. Yet that isn't what the article is about. Instead it is about:
How the drive to attract massive numbers of visitors to their Web sites (and the advertisers that might follow them) is having a profound effect on news judgment at traditional news organizations.
The article explores what is happening to journalism today:
High-minded headlines and stories about foreign wars, the federal deficit or environmental despoilage might have paid the bills in the age of Murrow and Cronkite, but they only go so far these days. Shark videos and "naked Lady Gaga" headlines get major play on "serious" news sites for an obvious and no longer terribly shocking reason: They draw traffic.
I'm very interested in the stories behind the shark and Lady Gaga stories. Why are we seeing an increase in shark sighting stories? Is it the titillating factor? Are there more shark sightings? Is it because we are better at sighting sharks, or shark populations are changing? If shark populations are changing, is it because of an increase in the seal population? Is it because of climate change? Are their other factors? And what about Lady Gaga? Is Lady Gaga a 'brand'? How do we understand personal brands in the age of social media? Is what she is doing 'art'? How do we understand 'art'? What is the relationship between Lady Gaga and Andy Warhol? What are the implications of personality in our political process, as we look at U.S. Senate candidate who is self-funding with millions of dollars obtained through entertainment based on sex and violence? To tie together Sharks, Lady Gaga, and Connecticut Politics, is Richard Blumenthal a shark and Linda McMahon Lady Gaga?
I've always thought that good journalism is a careful mix between what people want to know and what people need to know. Great journalism is when a writer takes what people want to know and leads them to what they need to know. Yet this brings us back to education, and Ms. Wojcicki's article. We need better education so that people will recognize and be drawn to great journalism, and we need better education so that students like Justin Layshock can become great journalists, instead of relying simply on the titillating without delving deeper into underlying issues. All of this, will hopefully lead to a better informed and more involved electorate.
So, what will Colin cover on his show tomorrow? Tune in and find out.
What is Your Legislative Agenda?
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Mon, 08/30/2010 - 09:16When my wife ran for state representative, people told us that 85% of voters do not know who their state legislators are. I never found research to back up this claim but based on the discussions we had during the campaign, it sounds about right. People would ask if we would need to move to Washington if Kim were elected. Our state legislature meets at the state capital in Hartford, so that would not be necessary.
A recent poll by Pulse Opinion Research found that 65% of people surveyed in Connecticut support initiative and referendum, and I wondered how many of them know who their state legislators are, have contacted their state legislators, or have ideas for initiatives or legislation that they would like to see.
In two months, voters will go to the polls in Connecticut. They will have an opportunity to vote for state legislators as well as a new Governor and Lt. Governor. Some people have important concerns they would like to see the legislator address. Have they spoken with the candidates about their concerns? Will they vote based on what the candidates say about these concerns?
Many advocacy organizations have their legislative agendas thought out for the coming year. Some state legislative candidates may have thought out the key points for their legislative agendas. Some of these may be fairly specific, others may be very broad. How many voters have their legislative agendas thought out for the coming year?
It is with this in mind, that I am asking you, what is your legislative agenda? Do you work for an advocacy organization and can speak about your organization's agenda? Are you running for office and can you speak about specific legislation you would like to see considered? Are you a voter with specific issues you would like to see addressed? How detailed can you get about a legislative fix?
Let me start off with a couple examples. Next year we will begin redistricting based on the results of the census. Political districts have often been drawn to support incumbents and powerful communities. What can be done to make sure that political boundaries are drawn more fairly? One idea is to end prison based gerrymandering. An objection to just about every form of legislation is that it will cost too much. How much does it cost to determine where prisoners are from? Should we have this data for other purposes as well? I believe this is a key issue that Common Cause, where my wife works, will be addressing.
Then, there are the issues that are of most interest to my daughter. She is interested in animal welfare and I have spent a lot of time speaking with rescuers about what could be done legislatively for dogs in need. Currently, animal control officers are generally part of the police department in their municipalities. They focus on public safety and not on animal welfare. There are lots of different changes that could be done to improve animal welfare. Some of the simplest would be requiring a basic level of training for animal control officers. Rescuers often feel that many animal control officers do not have enough knowledge of animal issues such as testing for diseases or judging how aggressive or trainable an animal is. Yet, like with the issue of prison based gerrymandering, there remains concern about the costs. What would it cost for municipalities to make sure that their animal control officers are properly trained? What are the related costs, such as liability of having an animal control officer without sufficient training, or the loss of public goodwill?
Related to this is the issue of when animals picked up by animal control officers should be tested for communicable diseases. Should all animals picked up be given basic tests? Do animal control officers have enough training to make a judgment call on when a test should given? Should all animals that are being adopted be tested before adoption? Again, the cost benefits calculation looms large.
These are but a few examples of legislation that the General Assembly might want to consider in their coming session. They are fairly specific. The pros and cons need to be considered. The fiscal impact, especially during these difficult financial times need to be considered.
So, what is your legislative agenda? Are the advocacy organizations you are part of and the candidates you are considering voting for supporting your legislative agenda?
(Cross posted at DeliberateCT. Please add your comments there.)
Campaign Spending and Voter Turnout
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Fri, 08/13/2010 - 08:48As pundits continue to pontificate about the low voter turnout last Tuesday, the state legislature meets today to consider whether or not to override Governor Rell’s veto of their fix to Connecticut’s Citizens’ Election Program. As I was reading Matt Zagaja’s Primary Post-Mortem on DeliberateCT it struck me: perhaps voter turnout is inversely correlated to campaign spending.
There are plenty of reasons why spending more money on campaigns might decrease voter turnout. A popular reason in this area is negative advertising. Negative advertising is often cited as a cause of decreased voter turnout, and in some cases that may even be the goal of the negative advertising campaign. Related to this is the idea of election fatigue. As people’s mailboxes, telephones and TVs get bombarded with messages from the candidates, voters simply get tired of it all and don’t even bother voting.
Yet perhaps the issue is a little deeper. Massive campaign spending is anti-democratic. Our republic is supposed to be a representative democracy. We are supposed to elect officials to represent us in public office. To represent someone, you need to listen to them. You need to hear their concerns. Voters just may feel that the candidate that spends $50 million dollars to tell you what she believes isn’t listening to you, the same way some voters feel that current elected officials just aren’t listening.
There is also the aspect of fiscal responsibility. Voters may feel uncomfortable giving control of the governmental purse strings to people that spend millions of dollars of their own money to get elected. Are these really the people that best understand what it means to stay on a tight budget?
Our political system has become too much of a media show. It is not about intelligent discourse, it is about winning over viewers and getting them to buy a product. The product is the candidate and the purchase is made in the voting booth. People don’t want to buy political products. They want representation. So, they just stay home.
An issue in the Citizens’ Election Program is whether or not ‘triggers’ are constitutional. Triggers are when a self-funded candidate exceeds some threshold. This triggers the Citizens’ Election Program to provide additional funds to candidates participating in the program. The courts have held that this is unconstitutional because it could have a chilling effect on the ultra-wealthy person’s desire to spend unlimited funds. In fact, the courts appear to have it completely backwards. It is the ultra-wealthy person’s excessive expenditures that has a chilling effect on the more fundamental aspect of free speech, people going to the polls and casting their votes.
The fix to the Citizens’ Election Program is an imperfect fix. However, it is probably the best we can get as long as judges believe that the ability to spend unlimited funds on campaigns is of greater importance than voter turnout.
