Editorials from around New England

“We underestimated” Connecticut gamers’ loyalty to the tribal casinos in southeastern Connecticut, said Mike Mathis, head of MGM Springfield.

Underestimated? They were off by nearly $160 million, or almost 39 percent of projections. That’s not just a financial mistake but a fundamental misunderstanding of the gaming market in southern New England.

Connecticut’s gaming landscape is a complex web, with many players, many lawyers and many interested parties. The Mohegans, who run Mohegan Sun, and Mashantucket Pequots, who operate Foxwoods Resort Casino, won the right to open a casino in East Windsor after gaining federal and state approval. Whether that casino – designed to divert the anticipated flow of Connecticut gamblers up Interstate 91 – even has a purpose any more is an open question.

But there are so many more moving parts. Gov. Lamont pulled back the veils from the discussions when he floated the idea of selling the creaky XL Center in Hartford to the tribes in exchange for allowing some gaming there, among other enticements. That puts the city of Hartford in the mix as well, and back room talks are underway.

Also in the mix, along with the XL Center, is sports betting, which the tribes claim that they should be able to operate exclusively. The city of Bridgeport is also involved, as both the tribes and MGM have expressed interest in opening a casino there. Internet gambling is also on the table.

The lawyers, meanwhile, are hovering in the background. MGM has threatened to sue if the East Windsor casino opens because, it says, the state should have allowed an open process before selecting the tribes to operate it.

“I feel very strongly that if we come up with the right deal, (MGM) would not sue,” Mr. Lamont said. “There is a solution that would avoid litigation, and that’s my priority.”

The priority, though, should not be reduced to avoiding litigation. The priority must be making sure everyone has reliable data and solid projections. It’s an economic decision that should be based on solid market research and data, not a five-way superstar deal made just before the trade deadline to please the fans.

As the disappointing news from Springfield should plainly show, nobody has a handle on any of the possible scenarios. MGM’s own projections in Springfield were significantly off, even if the numbers were outdated and the predictions were rosy.

Any sort of negotiated settlement among the parties must be based on economics, not politics. Real data are required here, supported by thorough analysis conducted by independent parties – not by the tribes, not by MGM, not by the state, not by the cities, not by any developer.

To that end, the state should commission an independent study to determine exactly what the costs and benefits would be if there were a casino or some kind of legalized gaming in the city of Hartford, or any of the other possible scenarios.

There’s a lot to consider. Best to have the facts first.

Online: https://bit.ly/2L8zy5Z

___

MAINE

Don’t sign ‘people’s veto’ just to put it on the ballot

Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel/CentralMaine.com

Aug. 30

There are 12 “people’s veto” campaigns now out in the field seeking to – as one organizer put it – “give Maine people a choice.”

That’s a common argument for these campaigns, and for many people it’s a persuasive one: Whether you agree or not with the issue at hand, why not put it on the ballot and let everyone decide?

But signing a people’s veto petition is more than a signal that you want voters to decide – it’s a declaration of support, and an indication that don’t you like what the Legislature has done.

After all, in a representative democracy, by the time a bill has become law, people have already had a say. In this case, Maine voters last November gave Democrats a majority in both the Senate and House, and elected Democratic Gov. Janet Mills by a hefty margin, and it was under those conditions that the laws were passed.

And the people’s voice doesn’t end there. Each of the dozen laws petitioners are trying to repeal went through the open legislative process. The three laws getting the most attention – MaineCare funding for abortion, the elimination of religious and philosophical exemptions for child vaccinations, and medically assisted suicide – were the subject of intense scrutiny.

The hearing on the bill to provide abortion coverage through MaineCare included 265 pieces of public testimony. The debate over the vaccination bill featured a 14-hour hearing.

The bills weren’t rushed through. They weren’t hastily considered. No one’s voice was denied. The Legislature and the democratic process worked how it’s supposed to. From the perspective of the voter who is pleased with or even ambivalent toward the new laws, there’s no need to spend the weeks leading up to a referendum rehashing the same arguments, taking time and space away from other issues.

Count us among those pleased with the laws. We are encouraged that Maine will now treat all women the same for the purposes of access to abortion. We agree that the state’s low vaccination rates put children with compromised immune systems at risk, and that the well-being of those children outweighs the overblown and sometimes imaginary concerns over vaccines. And we believe that Mainers should be able to make end-of-life decisions for themselves.

If you too are happy to see these initiatives become law, don’t sign the petitions now circulating – most matters should not be decided by statewide referendum.

Don’t sign, either, if you are unsure about the issues or what exactly would be going on the ballot.

Disagree with the new laws? By all means, sign away. For each of the dozen petitions, organizers have to gather at least 63,067 valid signatures by Sept. 18 to put a repeal on the ballot – probably for the new March presidential primaries, but maybe in June, when the rest of the primaries are held.

If they can get that many signatures, it should mean that all those people are truly up in arms about the actions of the Legislature, and that a referendum is warranted to make sure lawmakers aren’t subverting the will of the voters.

In those cases, the people’s veto is invaluable. Otherwise, it’s kind of a waste.

Online: https://bit.ly/2ZDZGK3

___

MASSACHUSETTS

Protecting the vulnerable from abuse

The Boston Globe

Aug. 26

For the parents of those with intellectual disabilities, the worry never stops. Their adult children – many of whom are in group homes or day programs – remain ever-vulnerable to abuse and neglect at the hands of their caregivers.

Massachusetts, through the independent Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DCCP), maintains a hotline to report such abuse or neglect as well as State Police investigators on its team to follow up. But in many instances, even when the commission substantiates allegations of abuse, the abuser simply moves on to the next facility.

That has to stop.

Last year the Legislature came close to passage of a bill creating a state registry of abusers. It passed the Senate but never came up for a vote in the House. The bill included a requirement that the Department of Developmental Services and all employers who serve people with developmental disabilities would have to check the registry before hiring a prospective caretaker.

The bill is back on the legislative agenda this year, with supportive lawmakers attempting to strike a balance between the rights of this vulnerable population and the rights of those accused of abuse. New language creating an appeals process should help resolve that conflict.

The bill is known on Beacon Hill as “Nicky’s Law,” named for Nicky Chan, whose parents, Nick and Cheryl Chan, have been fighting for several years to establish just such a registry, after their then 21-year-old son, who is autistic and nonverbal, was abused while attending a day program.

The inability of many victims to speak for themselves makes criminal prosecutions difficult and often unlikely to succeed. That was the case for Nicky Chan, and so there was nothing to prevent his abuser from once again working in group homes.

Nicky’s story is all too common.

The Commission has seen a 30 percent increase in abuse allegations made to its hotline over the past five years and nearly a 20 percent increase in allegations of sexual abuse against people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, DCCP Executive Director Nancy Alterio testified last fall. The DCCP, which handles incidents involving disabled persons between the ages of 18 and 59 (other state agencies deal with abuse of those under 18 or those considered elderly), receives more than 11,000 reports of abuse on its hotline each year, about half involving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

So this is no small problem, and it is growing – or, at the very least, the willingness of victims and of their parents to come forward is growing. But that’s of little benefit if nothing comes of those actions – and if abusers remain free to move from one set of vulnerable clients to another.

The DCCP is precisely the right agency to continue to do what it does best – substantiate claims of abuse. And once it does, those names would go on the registry – even absent a criminal conviction. Yes, there should be an appeals process, and yes, the redrafted bill will probably include a provision that will allow those listed to petition for removal after five years.

At its last public hearing, the bill won the support of a number of people who work in the industry and of a union representing human service employees. They know that one bad actor can certainly ruin a life, but one bad actor can also ruin the reputation of an otherwise decent facility and its staff. Doing everything to prevent that is in everyone’s best interest.

Getting Nicky’s Law on the books will be a giant step forward.

Online: https://bit.ly/30LXGkr

___

NEW HAMPSHIRE

A look at stalking after tragedy in Seabrook

Foster’s Daily Democrat

Aug. 23

The tragedy endured by the VanDalinda family of Seabrook is beyond belief and seems so preventable, yet it wasn’t.

Catrina Costello, now 39, who had harassed her neighbors to the point they obtained a protective order against her, ran over Stephen and Erin VanDalinda and their dog with her truck while they were out for a walk in August 2018. Stephen, 64, was killed. Erin, who was 61 at the time, was seriously hurt. Their German shepherd, Lucy, was killed, too.

Costello on Wednesday in Rockingham County Superior Court was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

The family made clear in their victim impact statements the never-ending pain they are feeling. They also vigorously made the case for how preventable it should have been. Here’s an excerpt from Erin VanDalinda’s impact statement, which was provided to Seacoast Media Group and read by her brother in court:

“During the two years preceding the murder, my husband, Stephen, and I notified the Seabrook Police Department several times regarding Catrina Costello’s and her then partner …. continued harassment, bullying and threatening conduct towards our family.

“In September 2017, I requested and was granted by the District Court in October 2017 a ‘no stalking order’ against the defendant; however, the restraining order did not stop the defendant from trying to provoke and/or intimidate us.

“In 2018 our family decided to sell our home of 21 years in Seabrook, NH, in response to the continued aggression from Catrina. Although she was well aware of our upcoming move, Costello followed through with her threats to murder both my husband and I that night of August 29, 2018.”

This is a family who felt they did everything they could legally to stop the harassment and get away from Costello. They already had a new home lined up in another town and were close to moving when this horrible tragedy happened. Family, friends and neighbors have lived through unspeakable grief. It’s heartbreaking and no amount of analyzing the situation can change what happened, but it leaves everyone seeking answers on how to prevent future tragedies.

We reached out this week to Amanda Grady Sexton of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence to ask: What should people do if they’re being stalked or harassed in this way?

“It’s important to recognize stalking is a very serious crime,” she said. “We’ve seen many instances where stalking behavior has escalated and has lethal consequences. We hear often that here are more and more neighborhood-type disputes that people don’t take as seriously as, for instance a stranger stalker. (Tensions) are really heightened in society right now … and when we see people escalating their behaviors, words and actions, these are indicators they need to be taken seriously.

“Please call our centers,” Grady Sexton added. “We have advocates who are trained in the dynamics of stalking. You don’t need to be in direct crisis to call.”

Services are available to people being stalked by current or former intimate partners but also situations where a neighbor is doing the stalking.

?(Our advocates) work with people to document events, to come up with a safety plan and to understand their legal options,” she said. “This might be accompanying a stalking victim to a local police station. We work on an empowerment model to help them understand all their options.” This includes helping people through the nuances of stalking protective orders and how they work, she said. You can find out all you need to know before taking that step.

The Seacoast crisis center is Haven. The 24-hour hotline is (603) 994-SAFE (7233). Walk-in services are offered weekdays 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at 20 International Drive, Suite 300 in Portsmouth, and 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at 150 Wakefield St. in Rochester. Visit havennh.org.

We share this information knowing it appears the VanDalindas took all the right steps and it wasn’t enough. Their son Ryan had strong criticism for Seabrook police. While we can’t independently verify police failed to take any action they could, this case serves as a reminder for all of the importance of enforcing protective orders.

Online: https://bit.ly/2Hy4muI

___

RHODE ISLAND

Protecting elections in Rhode Island

The Providence Journal

Aug. 25

Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea’s most important job is to make sure Rhode Island elections are on the up-and-up.

Unfortunately, she has unilaterally blocked the public from obtaining information that was previously available in digital form to check on the accuracy of the voter lists she maintains. (In this year’s session, the legislature balked at Ms. Gorbea’s attempt to deny the public such information by law.) And now it turns out that she bought voting machines that could be liable to hacking.

The issue came to light recently through a Vice.com investigation, which found that, for a period of time, Rhode Island’s elections system was connected to the internet. The public had been assured the machines were walled off from potential hacking.

Researchers were able to find online the reporting system for results from the entire state. Not good.

The problem is striking a balance between quick reporting of results – which in itself helps protect our elections from fraud – and making sure machines are free from tampering. Modems in the voting machines Ms. Gorbea bought transmit election results quickly to the state Board of Elections after the polls close.

As Patrick Anderson reported (“Report prompts R.I. elections to examine security of voting systems,” news, Aug. 8), the federal government has never certified such machines as safe to use in the age of hackers, and this summer a U.S. Senate committee urged states to use only federally-approved voting machines and “remove (or render inert) any wireless networking capability,” such as a modem.

Ms. Gorbea purchased 600 of the machines before the 2016 election and another 20 in the spring of 2018. In May 2018, Common Cause Rhode Island warned of the danger.

“The presence of these modems in the absence of a well-defined strategy for mitigating the risk they present, undermines confidence in the voting system,” Executive Director John Marion wrote to the Board of Elections and Ms. Gorbea. “We believe the people of Rhode Island should be provided with assurances that the Board understands the risks created by the presence of the modems in the tabulators and is doing something – whether removing them or managing the risk – to protect the voting system.”

In the wake of the Vice.com story, Ms. Gorbea stressed that “cybersecurity is not a destination” but a constant process of reassessment. She urged the Board of Elections, which is responsible for maintaining the equipment she bought, to “review in detail” the concerns raised in the article.

A volunteer has reportedly been lending the board some advice since then, which is welcome. The board has repeatedly audited machines to make sure they are operating properly. The state also works with several federal agencies tasked with protecting public institutions from hacking.

But Rhode Island should also have a professional firm that can be held accountable working to protect the election system from outside hacking at any point in the transmission of information.

Fortunately, Ms. Gorbea made certain that the system she bought involves paper ballots – a strong protection against fraud in that the votes may be recounted if anyone noticed the results were tampered with somehow.

As Ms. Gorbea notes, evolving technology makes all of this a moving target. The secretary of state and the Board of Elections have an ongoing challenge, and duty, to make sure our elections system is protected from potential hackers.

Online: https://bit.ly/2HyYfqj

___

VERMONT

Trump circumventing the Flores Settlement Agreement

The Rutland Herald

Aug. 30

We commend Attorney General T.J. Donovan for adding Vermont to a coalition of states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit opposing the Trump administration’s new rule circumventing the Flores Settlement Agreement, which has governed the treatment of children in immigration custody since 1997.

In the complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the coalition argues that the rule eliminates several critical protections guaranteed by the Flores Settlement Agreement. In particular, the prolonged detention risked by the rule would cause irreparable harm to children, their families, and the communities that accept them upon their release from federal custody.

“We will stand up for the welfare of immigrant children,” stated Donovan. “We will continue to fight for the dignity and fundamental rights of families, regardless of immigration status.”

Kevin McAleenan, acting secretary of Homeland Security, recently called the Flores settlement a “key gap in our immigration framework,” arguing that the rule change closes a “legal loophole” effectively “incentivizing illegal entry.”

However, the rule change, set to go into effect in about 60 days, would allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain families indefinitely after transferring them from border custody.

This is wrong on many levels: in policy, morality and marginalizing our nation’s heritage. Mostly, though, the administration is disregarding basic human rights. Trump and his team are using helpless immigrant children as political pawns to further an ideological agenda.

According to news reports, the 19 states in the coalition (plus D.C.) have stated they will emphatically assert themselves to protect the welfare and safety of all children, regardless of where they come from or the color of their skin.

In a news release on Vermont’s role, Donovan wrote: “In the lawsuit, the coalition argues that the Trump administration’s final rule interferes with the states’ ability to help ensure the health, safety, and welfare of children by undermining state licensing requirements for facilities where children are held. The rule would result in the vast expansion of family detention centers, which are not state licensed facilities and have historically caused increased trauma in children. The rule will lead to prolonged detention for children with significant long-term negative health consequences. In addition, the coalition argues the rule violates both the Administrative Procedure Act and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

The Flores Settlement Agreement stems from a class-action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 1985 in response to substandard conditions of confinement for unaccompanied immigrant children. The lawsuit sought to establish standards for how the federal government should handle the detention of minors, including plaintiff Jenny Lisette Flores. Following litigation that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government eventually reached a 1997 settlement that included:

– Releasing children “without unnecessary delay” to their parents, legal guardians, other adult relatives, another individual designated by the parents/guardians, or a licensed program willing to accept legal custody.

– Placing children in the “least restrictive setting” appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs.

– And establishing standards for safe and sanitary conditions of confinement for children in immigration detention.

This lawsuit is a fight for the most vulnerable.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson pointed to interviews conducted by state civil-rights investigators with 28 migrant children ages 12 to 17 who were transferred to state-run child care facilities in Washington after being held at federal detention sites (in effect, migrant jails) at the southern border sometime over the past year. The interviewees described conditions in the migrant jails: cramped cells, young kids locked in metal cages for days as punishment and guards throwing food on the floor for children to fight over.

Our nation needs to stop detaining families indefinitely and needlessly inflicting trauma, and creating policies that use immigration policy as an abuse of power.

Donovan and the other states are looking out for all of us, especially when it is clear this administration cannot be left to regulate itself.

Online: https://bit.ly/32pcplV