Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in October 2018

Because we can

October 22, 2018

rainey

“Before we work on artificial intelligence,
why don’t we do something about natural stupidity?

This bit of doggerel appeared on the old computer machine the other day and got me thinking some serious thoughts. Thoughts like, just because new tools of our technologically-driven world allow us to do things not previously possible, should we?

After some considerable thought, my answer is, “No. Not always.”

While humankind traditionally embraces discovery and new ways of living, in some cases, we’ve found ourselves with the ability to “do” without asking “Now that we can, should we?” “Do we understand what we’re doing?”

The current ability to keep brain-dead and other near-terminal bodies alive is one such instance in which technology has made something possible but we’ve not yet developed solid ethics to answer the question “Should we?

Or, we can clone animals. This naturally leads to the query, “What about humans?” To which we should immediately further ask, “Should we?”

Scientists at M-I-T have disclosed they’ve bred lab rats that age in reverse! Now, we’ll see public clamor to try it on humans. Is someone - anyone - going to quickly and loudly ask “Should we?”

Not many folks remember Josef Mengele - Doctor Mengele. He was assigned to the Auschwitz prison camp in 1942, and contributed to the deaths of millions of Jews. But, his real Nazi “fame” came from his ghastly experiments to develop a “master race.” Pictures, published after World War II, showed the depth of depravity of his “work.” It’s still impossible to understand why someone - anyone - would have submitted thousands to such brutality.

Mengele told the Nazi hierarchy he could create the “master race” through medically inhumane means. But no one asked, “Should we?”

Extreme case? Yes. Definitely. But it brutally teaches us that we - as humans - are capable of trekking off into uncharted domains without considering necessary ethics to deal with such issues and without asking “Should we?

Now, we’re faced with “artificial intelligence.” Developers are boldly touting what it will do for us - how it will change our lives for the better - how it will advance our “civilization.”

As a nation - as a world - we should just as loudly be asking “Yes, we can, but should we?” I’ve not heard of anyone or any serious intellectual body raising the issue of developing concomitant ethics - rules - standards - limitations - before we dash headlong into this new “computerized world.”

A.I. is not something to necessarily be afraid of. But, the capabilities of this astounding science are so immense we need to figure out what we’re going to do with it - how we’re going to use it - what aspects of it we should pursue - what limitations (and how many and for what) we should adopt.

In a very real sense, A.I. amounts to humans turning over many “duties” that have traditionally been our responsibilities - our tasks - our ways of living - to inanimate, but very intelligent, machines.

Is anyone truly asking which responsibilities, which tasks, which real world ethics we should apply? Is anyone looking at limitations - what failsafe protections we need to develop before we rush into this new ”Utopia?”

I don’t hang around the M-I-T labs on a regular basis. Nor am I on mailing lists of other major research institutions. So, some of what’s happening in these “lofty towers” may be getting past me.

But, I’d like to think that, as we consider what to do with this new science, someone - many someone’s - are toiling with the simple but world-changing question: “We can, but should we?”

Why support the Nampa library?

October 21, 2018

A guest opinion from educator Michael Strickland.

When was the last time you visited the Nampa Public Library? If it has been a while, you may be surprised at the plethora of resources to help every sector of our community, from the homeless, to teens, to seniors, to small businesses and YOU.

“While public libraries are simply an abstraction to some, for many of us they were and continue to be a sanctuary, a community, a public rejection of the notion that knowledge should be contingent on what you can afford, a place where no price can be placed on the access to ideas,” said public intellectual Clint Smith on Twitter.

In the midst of a national trend of waning support for public libraries, it is a good time to visit just of few of them many reasons that the Nampa Public Library is a priceless community center:

1. Books music, and dvd checkouts: By offering access to a massive collection of books, music, and movies, the Nampa Public Library fundamentally advances the idea that culture is a public good. It is one that all people have a right to enjoy, regardless of their income.

2. Educational help and guidance: Reference librarians show patrons the correct websites to go to, help them navigate and interpret resources, and teach them how to scan and use email. Nampa Public Library staff helps people fill forms for low-income housing and other documents, which are often complicated and overwhelming. Sometimes this means showing them how to access and fill out an online PDF.

3. Story time and children’s programming: Mothers, fathers, grandparents, foster parents, nannies and children attend regular story times. Many of them acknowledge this as some of the only time they spend out of the house socializing. It’s a rare place that creates a sense of community, bridging socioeconomic gaps. The library is also a safe and creative space for teens.

4. Community events: Government officials, candidates, nonprofits, charities, health providers, businesses, church groups — all types of groups and leaders hold Q&A sessions and discussions at the library. The Nampa Public Library is a safe place for all people to gather.

5. Computer, internet and academic resources: Hardware, laptop, internet and wi fi access are available for those who don’t have them.

6. Job trainings: The library has courses as well as a wide variety of resources for the unemployed and homeless. Nampa librarians help patrons search for the correct offices. They print Google maps with walking or bus instructions. They give residents a running start to help improve lives. In a world heavily skewed toward people who can pay for access to resources, the library helps level the playing field.

7. Art, music, history and culture: There are more than this article can even list: Check out the Nampa Public Library Event Calendar.

Our library is essential to the Nampa community, in ways that even frequent patrons might not know. “Public libraries are a unique and irreplaceable amenity at the foundation of our democracy of informed citizens,” said Christopher Platt, Chief Branch Library Officer, New York Public Library. “That is not changing. If anything, the public needs its public libraries more than ever, as we work to close the digital divide, help the less fortunate, and separate fact from fiction. We’re not going anywhere.”

Take a minute and donate to the Nampa Public Library today! Follow the Nampa Public Library Foundation on Facebook for details and updates.

Michael Strickland teaches at Boise State University and is the Administrative Associate for the Nampa Public Library Foundation.

Idaho Weekly Briefing – October 22

October 21, 2018

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for October 22. Would you like to know more? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

We're at work trying to make the Briefing a free-access publication through contributions. See our donation site at IndieGogo.

Still more debates were held last week between candidates for state office as the general election reaches its final phase. The biggest debates had to do with finances in the campaign of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Paulette Jordan.

Idaho’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate declined slightly to 2.7 percent in September, continuing at or below 3 percent for the 13th consecutive month. The state’s labor force – the total number of people 16 years of age and older working or looking for work – was 853,076 people, essentially unchanged since July.

Idaho National Laboratory has completed a Technical Assistance Agreement with a company seeking independent evaluation of its test plans for improving a cybersecurity product designed to safeguard industrial controls and critical infrastructure.

Entomologists with the Idaho Department of Lands and U.S. Forest Service spent this fall sampling selected trees for infestations of tiny wingless insects that can have devastating effects on fir stands in Idaho and the region.

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and Tamarack Homeowners Acquisition Company have agreed to a land exchange and bond-transfer agreement to settle outstanding debt associated with Tamarack Resort near Donnelly.

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter reported positive initial feedback on October 18 from the 11 Idaho companies and organizations that joined him on a trade mission to Toronto, Canada from October 1 – 4, 2018.

The Boise City Council on October 17 approved the purchase of a downtown property to house a Boise Police Department microdistrict substation to serve Boise’s growing and vibrant downtown core.

President Donald J. Trump has signed into law legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, and Gary Peters (D-MI) aimed at helping small businesses safeguard their intellectual property with expanded education on obtaining and protecting patents.

The city of Nampa is beginning a process to review and update its Comprehensive Plan which guides growth and development in Nampa. Community members are invited to join in the process by attending open houses, completing surveys or participating in the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. The first advisory committee meeting will be held October 23.

IMAGE This is a smaller example of the type, but forests of political campaign signs have sprouted all over Idaho with the arrival of October. (photo/Randy Stapilus)

Where’d the money go?

October 20, 2018

johnson

Paulette Jordan, the Democratic candidate for governor of Idaho, has created in a way rarely seen in the state's recent political history a small donor fundraising juggernaut. Jordan has tapped into thousands of small donors in Idaho and across the country. From Clinton, N.Y., to Longview, Wash., from Aiken, S.C., to Denver, Colo., people have been sending her money and in the process she has raised more than $1 million, a respectable figure for an underdog Democrat in Idaho

A substantial percentage of Jordan's fundraising haul has come from small, individual contributions, some as small as $5 and many less than $100. And many donors have given to her campaign multiple times. It is the kind of broad-based fundraising that candidates dream about.

Jordan's contribution profile differs dramatically from her opponent, Lt. Gov. Brad Little, who has mostly relied on the standard sources of GOP campaign cash - industry PACs, businesses, lobbyists and well-heeled supporters from across the state.

As a result Little has out-raised the Democrat by a lot and in the home stretch has held on to more cash for a final push.

Yet there is a confounding mystery at the heart of Jordan's campaign: Little of her cash seems to have made its way into what you might call a real campaign - direct mail, billboards, TV, radio, newspapers and social media.

Rather, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on out-of-state consultants and, as the Idaho Statesman's Cynthia Sewell documented recently, on food, travel and lodging - much of it out of state - by the candidate.

Jordan's pre-election campaign finance disclosure report is simply one of the most unusual - which is to say - unprecedented documents of its type since Idaho voters mandated campaign finance disclosure in 1974.

To say the least, the report raises more questions than it answers, while the campaign refuses to provide answers to basic questions about how and why it has spent its money.

Consider a just few questionable details from Jordan's Oct. 10 report:

The campaign has paid at least four out-of-state companies in Wyoming, Vermont and Minnesota nearly $50,000 for what it says are various consulting services. Yet the companies appear to be "shells" with no actual place of business, only a mailing address and a contact listed as a "registered agent." One company is identified by the campaign as a Limited Liability Company with a Post Office box in Peru, Vt., but the Vermont secretary of state has no record of the company existing. Another company that has received payments from Jordan's campaign lists its address as an apartment in Minneapolis.

One company with a Cheyenne, Wyo., address, lists Jordan's campaign manager, Nathanial Kelly, as its president, secretary, treasurer and only director. Kelly is the same guy who recently tried to explain away why the campaign required its staffers to sign nondisclosure agreements. Kelly's Wyoming firm only became active in August, just about the time Kelly has said he was helping the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, with Jordan's encouragement, to establish a federal super PAC.

A second Wyoming firm that received two $10,000 payments from Jordan since August is registered at the same Sheridan, Wyo., address as the federal PAC. This firm has not filed more complete information, including the names of incorporators, with the state of Wyoming because it isn't required to do so until a year after it is formally registered. Meanwhile, the campaign insists that none of its resources have gone to helping establish the federal PAC, which Jordan has refused to discuss beyond criticizing the reporting that disclosed its existence.

The Jordan campaign has employed two different digital fundraising firms, both located in Washington, D.C., and paid them more than $110,000. One firm started work after Jordan won the May primary. The campaign also reports payments to two separate campaign reporting and compliance firms, with one firm joining post-primary. The campaign, which has had two high profile staff shake ups since May and declined to provide information on how many different employees it has paid - it appears upwards of a dozen - has also utilized two different payroll services firms, but has also paid staff directly.

These set-ups raise the question: Why are two firms doing what appears essentially to be the same job?

The campaign also reported a $1,000 "contribution" to a California entity that lists the same Novato, Calif., address as one of the reporting and compliance firms. When I asked who received the contribution, I was told the money went to "an elected official who is consulting for the campaign as well."

A spokeswoman at the Idaho Secretary of State's office said failure to disclose the recipient of a contribution from an Idaho campaign committee is a violation of Idaho law.

That obviously is a problem for Jordan's campaign, but her small dollar donors might also be justified in asking: Why would an Idaho campaign scraping for every dollar make any contribution to a candidate in California?

Campaigns, we all know, cost money. Personnel, technology, advertising and travel require money, the kind of money Jordan has been raising.

But the real question for the candidate - and her thousands of small donors - is why so little of the more than $1 million she has raised has been spent in a way that might actually reach, inform and motivate Idaho voters?

The campaign has talked about the importance of transparency and accountability in state government, but that clearly doesn't extend to her campaign.

Jordan's latest campaign finance report is a black box of questions, contradictions and head-scratching inconsistencies. It all raises another question: Where has all the money gone and why?

Johnson was press secretary and chief of staff to the late former Idaho Gov. Cecil D. Andrus. He lives in Manzanita, Ore.

Dodgeball

October 19, 2018

stapiluslogo1

A viewer of the Monday night Idaho governor debate, between Republican Brad Little and Democrat Paulette Jordan, could be forgiven for sensing a discussion slipping away. Rather than coming to grips with topics of discussion, these candidates seemed to have trouble - or maybe avoided - obtaining purchase on a number of them.

Both candidates sounded uncomfortable at first, picking up more control as the hour wore on. The seeming uneasiness was a little odd since, by now, both have had months (in Little’s case, a year and a half) to polish their messages. There were no questions from out of left field; the subjects raised mostly were more or less predictable.

And yet both candidates seemed to have trouble grasping them. If they were trying to avoid sounding like purveyors of sound bites, they succeeded; but a lack of clarity and some evident dodginess was there instead.

Jordan’s campaign has generated a stack of the kind of headlines no candidate should want, from staff departures under mysterious circumstances to - this surfaced last week - spending for campaign services with a brand new company (Roughneck Steering Inc.) organized in Wyoming which appeared designed to hide information about itself from Idahoans. This isn’t just a gotcha situation; how a candidate runs a campaign realistically can be seen as a precursor to the methods used to run an administration.

Understandably, Jordan was asked about some of this, most specifically about the Wyoming company. Her response suggests she was not prepared for it. She didn’t answer the question, at all, even after a reporter clearly stated it three times. She did say repeatedly she favors transparency in government, but that didn’t come across well after her opaque answers about her campaign. (Little didn’t have a great deal to say in this area, reasonably since his campaign has had no comparable problems.)

She also tripped on the question of who she would choose to populate her administration, and how they would be chosen, and seemed (it sounded like an afterthought) to promote the idea of bringing in people from out of state to run Idaho agencies. That might not go over well.

She was able to score on Little, however, when the discussion turned to immigration and health care, two subjects where she answered clearly but he had his own difficulties. Little pointed out correctly that border issues are mainly a federal rather than state responsibility, and said reform of immigration policy is needed. But he became tangled, and shifted to avoidance, when asked about what policies he personally recommended and what he thought of the Trump Administration’s approach. He’s in a tough spot, in a state where the Trump policies on immigration are popular through much of his party but not in the many areas (including farm areas) where they create problems. Sill: Leadership grows out of the ability to make such choices.

Something similar happened when the subject was the ballot issue on Medicaid expansion, which Jordan clearly supports. Little has said (previously as well as here) that he would support the will of the people and implement the expansion if the voters pass it. But what does he recommend the voters do - pass it or oppose it? Little simply dodged.

Clarity did show up in some places. Little’s view of Idaho’s economic, education and social status is brighter - it should be, since he’s in a de facto incumbent position - than Jordan’s, and voters can make their own assessments accordingly.

Debates sometimes can be a place where a skillful candidate can take aim at his or her own weaknesses by addressing them strongly. Voter who watched this debate know this much: It didn’t happen here.

Appointments

October 18, 2018

schmidt

With the recent Judge Kavanaugh debacle in the US Senate it’s worth reflecting on this process here in Idaho.

The Idaho Senate confirms many gubernatorial appointments as required by law. Some appointments and the boards they serve on have statutory (legal) requirements. Appointees come before an assigned committee and are interviewed. Then the appointment is carried by a Senator to the floor of the Idaho Senate for confirmation.

The legal requirements for serving on a Boards or Commission, or as Director of a department usually had to do with qualifying experience, but often, in statute the makeup of the board was required to have a partisan balance. Statute might read “no more than two members may be of the same party”. That’s what the statute for the Board of Corrections says. Is this legal requirement for partisan balance important? You bet it is.

Without it, cronyism would be more rampant than it is. More, it could affect your vote for Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Cindy Wilson has been active in Idaho government well beyond her classroom work as a teacher. She is a strong leader and a powerful voice. So, I can’t figure out why she got appointed to the Board of Corrections unless Brad Little stood up for her.

Governor Otter has used these appointments as a partisan tool. Brad advocates for good people. But he keeps a political eye on the landscape. Some Fish and Game Commissioners have gone on to the legislature. Some appointments are rewards to moderate Republicans beat by Tea Party republicans. If the statute requires it, they become “unaffiliated”. Butch knows how to stack the deck. Brad has a better eye for the common good.

What better place to see the need for improvement in our public schools than in our prisons? As a Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee member, I toured many Idaho prisons. Not to mention I worked there as a physician. On one tour we observed a classroom working on personal accountability. As we started to leave our Chairman (Dean Cameron) asked the class how many had graduated from high school. He did it politely, with a purpose. One hand of the thirty inmates went up. As we went out to the bus I stood next to him and complemented him for the question.

Legislators need to know these things. “Were you pushing for funding pre-K education?” I asked. He rolled his eyes. He wanted his committee members to make the connections; I might have taken that a bit too far.

Cindy Wilson served on the Governor’s Task Force after the Luna Laws got shot down. Now she serves on the Board of Corrections. Connecting the dots on how our citizens thrive may seem simple to some. A local candidate suggests “getting rid of the dead beats”. Does he mean a deep trench and a firing squad?

I believe Cindy Wilson has watched classroom performance, has watched our corrections system struggle and now balloon, and understands the connection. But if Butch Otter (or Brad Little) wanted to make Idaho safe from Democrats, he never would have offered her for such a position. He did. Thanks Butch (or Brad).

To exhale

October 17, 2018

richardson

Ever since election night 2016, I’ve been holding my breath. The Russian propelled election of Donald Trump to the presidency was, for many, a traumatic event. Every day since that terrible night, we have seen ever deepening shadows of oligarchy, tyranny, and torture.

As the litany of horrible words and deeds has spilled forth from Mr. Trump and his sycophantic entourage, I have feared for our country, for the future of our representative democracy, for the rule of law.

Long before he took the oath of office, Mr. Trump sought to exploit our differences and divide Americans, to turn us into a nation of bitter rivals who talk past each other, excoriate each other, and see governing as a zero sum game.

If there had been the slightest hope that a President Trump would exceed expectations and become a statesman after the election, that hope was extinguished on Inauguration Day when Trump gave his “American Carnage” speech. His presidency, like his candidacy, would be that of a demagogue. He would play, relentlessly and unashamedly, to his base.

And if there was ever a ray of hope that members of his own party, the majority in both houses of Congress, would stand up to Trump’s recklessness, that ray was likewise extinguished when it became clear that McConnell and Ryan and their respective caucuses would turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to any wrongdoing. They transcended mere enablement; they became Trump’s confederates.

Over the last two years, the resistance has grown – the Women’s March, the rise of Indivisible Groups, the special elections that saw Connor Lamb win a seat in Congress and Doug Jones elected to the Senate from Alabama, the many triumphs in local elections held in cities and towns across the country, and the abundance of new leaders rising to the occasion, running for office and speaking truth to power.

But through it all I’ve held my breath. It hasn’t felt safe to exhale because the House and Senate committees on Intelligence have concealed the truth about the Trump-Russia labyrinth, because the senate Democrats have been helpless to stop the Federalist Society’s hostile takeover of the judiciary, and because our president has routinely offended our allies and catered to our enemies, often expressing his desire to emulate them.

Now, a little over three weeks out from the mid-term election, I dare to hope that I can exhale, that our nation will reject Trumpism and its cruel treatment of immigrant children, of the elderly and disabled, of Gold Star mothers and prisoners of war, of those poisoned by lead in their drinking water and others decimated by hurricanes.

I dare to hope that our nation will, in the words of our sixteenth president, be touched again “by the better angels of our nature,” that a government “of, by and for the people,” will not perish from this earth.

So I will vote and continue to volunteer and contribute. I will lend my voice to the resistance and persist in speaking my truth. We cannot endure two more years of unchecked tyranny. Until the polls close on November 6, I will not relax. I cannot exhale.

An unbearable hothouse

October 16, 2018

jones

Earth’s future generations will undoubtedly spend a good deal of their time cursing us for condemning them to an unbearably hot planet. They will be confounded by our utter disregard of the present scientific consensus that Earth is headed for a global warming disaster. They will wonder how we could have been so selfish that we would not have taken reasonable action to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just issued an urgent warning that the world has a window of just 10 years to reduce carbon emissions enough to avert widespread environmental damages long into the future. We have already seen warning signs all around us--historically destructive wildfires, repeated record storm surges and downpours of rain that have been fueled by warming ocean waters, record-breaking global temperatures, and northward-creeping warm-climate plants, animals and diseases. And, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

If we wait to take action until much of Florida and many east and west coast cities have disappeared under ocean waves, it will be too late. Pentagon planners project that by then there will be chronic droughts and crop failures over wide areas of the world. That will result in large population movements and desperate struggles over resources, leading to unprecedented armed conflict and unfathomable numbers of deaths.

This may all sound alarmist but it is time for people to get alarmed and activated. The Trump administration is well aware that human activity, such as burning of fossil fuels in smokestacks and cars, is largely responsible for the crisis. A recent administration report projects a disastrous 7 degree increase in global temperature by the end of the century.

Despite the fact that such an increase would make some areas of the world uninhabitable, the administration proposes to let more greenhouse gases belch into the air. Those gases not only cause the Earth to get hotter, but they kill an estimated 80,000 Americans each year from respiratory illness.

The administration has been cutting back numerous programs to reduce dangerous emissions. We should be taking dramatic action in the other direction to protect the very lives of our children and grandchildren.

Can greenhouse gases hurt humankind? Climate scientists believe that massive greenhouse emissions, somewhat comparable to the almost 40 billion tons we presently spew into the air each year, resulted in a number of mass extinction events in Earth’s past. Those were the result of unimaginably huge volcanic activity.

Geologic and fossil evidence indicates that volcanoes erupting over a wide area of what is now Siberia threw gigantic amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. The overheated air killed over 90 percent of life in the oceans and 75 percent on land in what is called the “Great Dying” at the end of Earth’s Permian period about 250 million years ago. Additional extinction events are suspected to have resulted from natural greenhouse concentrations in years since.

We can’t control natural greenhouse gas emissions but we have the knowhow to control and reduce human-caused emissions. We just need the brains and resolve to keep our planet safe for human habitation. If we refuse to do so, there is a possible bright spot. The fossil record suggests that if we allow another extinction event to occur, the Earth will return to a habitable state in about 5-10 million years afterward.

Jim Jones’ past columns can be found at JJCommonTater.com.

A Trump positive

October 15, 2018

rainey

Never thought the day would come - at least in this lifetime - I’d give Donald Trump credit for anything positive. Just seemed absolutely impossible. But, while that “credit” is awfully tangential, it’s his nonetheless.

Hold that thought. A bit of background is required.

The Governor of Connecticut has signed into law legislation allowing that state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). A mouthful, to be sure. But, it’s important.

NPVIC was formed several years ago to make an end run around existing federal law in the way the Electoral College works. Presently, each state has the same number of College votes as it does members of Congress. Idaho, for example, has four - two Representatives and two Senators. Oregon has seven; Washington 12, California 55, Texas 38 and so on.

Currently, if a presidential candidate amasses an Electoral College vote total 270 in several large states, the popular vote winner could lose. In reality, we’d have a minority president. Trump-Clinton. Bush-Gore.

What the Compact represents is states changing their own laws so the popular vote winner is the real winner in future presidential elections. If the Compact can reach the 270 vote total - the same Electoral College number a presidential candidate has to get to win now - future races would go to the popular vote victor. Minus considerable legal challenges to that end run.

With the addition of Connecticut, the Compact currently has 172 electoral votes coming from California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and D.C.. So, the hunt is on for a total of 98 more. A few “biggies” like Ohio (18), Texas (38), Michigan (16) and Florida (29) could put things “over-the-top.”

While there many folk - corporate and political - who don’t want to change - and many reasons (or excuses) for not doing so - the one indisputable argument on the table is simple: all other elections - for anything - are decided by the majority of the most votes cast. Period. The presidency is the only contest - from dog catcher to Congress - in which the majority can - as we’ve seen recently - lose the race.

“What’s that got to do with giving credit to Trump,” you ask?

Since the 2016 election, according to Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, more states are asking for information about the Compact and more research is being done on how to draft legislation.

As Connecticut State Rep. Mathew Lesser put it in debate, “The Trump victory appears to have given the issue some added momentum.”

Thanks, Donny! You’ve been a big help.