First he was in, then he was out, then he was in, then he was out, now he’s back in. School board member Andre Baker on Tuesday picked up petition papers to challenge party endorsed Ernie Newton in an August Democratic primary setting up a battle between two candidates with East End voter bases. Baker must submit 370 certified signatures from district Democrats by June 10 to make the ballot.
Upon hearing the news Baker filed petition papers, Newton struck quickly.
“Baker’s got to answer to the voters why he sold out the children and teachers and supported the mayor’s budget that relies on in kind services instead of direct funding of the schools,” said Newton, regarding the mayor meeting the state’s Minimum Budget Requirement. “I look forward to taking my message to the streets. Baker sounds like there’s no office he won’t run for. He decided to get on the board of education to make change and help children. He lied to the voters. He’s been there less than a year. Do they want a person who just runs for office or do they want someone who has experience helping the city?”
Newton claims Deborah Sims, a city employee supporter of Mayor Bill Finch, is behind recruiting Baker’s candidacy. “If Sims is behind this the mayor is behind this,” says Newton who had breakfast with the mayor a few weeks ago in an attempt at political peace. “She doesn’t make a move unless the mayor gives permission. They want to elect Baker so he doesn’t run for mayor next year.”
If Finch supports Baker’s candidacy, he’s not doing so publicly. There’s a risk-reward factor for Finch’s political operation to weigh in against Newton, who has a strong following in the East End, with Finch up for reelection next year. Also, Finch’s political operation is working to elect Chris Rosario, the city’s anti-blight chief to the State House against incumbent Christina Ayala as well as the reelection of State Senator Anthony Musto who faces a tough primary challenge from political activist and healthcare professional Marilyn Moore.
They’d have to divert bodies and resources away from those races. The Finch operation, no doubt, can raise money for Baker, but will it? Baker, a former city councilor, has never tested someone with Newton’s following. When Baker won a seat on the school board last year as part of a challenge slate with Dave Hennessey and Howard Gardner, the financing and campaign operation was put together for him from several organized education advocates including the Bridgeport Education Association, Connecticut Education Association and the Connecticut Working Families Party.
The reticent Baker, who operates funeral homes in Bridgeport and Norwalk, had been having a hard time making a decision about entering the race. Over the Memorial Day weekend he made the decision to challenge Newton. Baker was hardly a Finch supporter while serving on the City Council, but as a school board member broke with the coalition that boosted his election last year by supporting Finch’s plan to build a new high school to replace Harding on Boston Avenue property owned by General Electric. Opponents to the location site environmental concerns. He also supported Finch’s funding of schools.
For Baker to wage a competitive primary against Newton he must qualify for public funds under the state’s Citizens Election Program of publicly funded races. He’d need to raise $5,000 in small donations to trigger a $27,500 public grant. Newton is barred from participating in the program following his conviction on corruption charges while a member of the legislature. Newton can raise funds outside of the public financing program.
Connecticut’s 124th State House seat covers the East End and a portion of the East Side.
The yeast has resin! Don’t slam the oven door!
It didn’t take long for Andre to switch sides. And I’m not sure what they do in Norwalk. But someone’s got to call a Spoiler Alert! on Baker, now that he’s a new member of the Finchettes!
Not much of a choice, is it? This is why so many people don’t bother voting. Hope someone else steps up. Best thing is to hope someone runs as a petition candidate or write-in candidate. Because you know the GOP will probably put up some tea party nutjob.
BRG, the Bridgeport Republicans have a hard enough time finding a warm body to run, never mind a GOTP.
Baker is a good man with good intentions who has just swallowed the Finch Kool-Aid. Finch will do whatever he has to do to keep Newton from gaining any additional power and if he can throw Andre under the bus to do it, he gains a run at a potential seat on the Board of Ed and one fewer contender for his job. Hard to imagine what Baker is thinking. He’s lost his credibility as an advocate for the education of Bridgeport’s children by his vote for the budget and now this announcement that signals lack of independence, commitment, resolve and integrity. Not sure how he will recover–he can’t beat Ernie and if he thinks Finch and Wood will work their tiny little hearts out for him over Musto and Rosario; well, then he’s in for some serious disappointment.
He’s lost his credibility as an advocate for the education of Bridgeport’s children by his vote for the budget …
Now I am BAFFLED … perhaps you will explain your statement? There have been very few folks on OIB who have been concerned about BOE finances for the past two years … I do not remember you as one of them. Have I missed your continuing observations about the budget for this year, the one ending in about 32 days? Were you aware a “deal” was brokered last fall between the Superintendent, the State and the Mayor’s office? What it did was to bring in and additional $1.2 Million for the current year and $1.2 Million for the 2015 budget year from the State of CT … IF the City paid its share of the deal … minimum budget requirement … and that contemplated some specific IN-KIND and some cash. The schools waited through the 2013 holidays, through the long cold winter and until April when the Mayor presented a budget with $8.6 Million of IN Kind and $1.2 Million of cash … a total of $9.8 Million for the schools IN HIS OPINION … though he knew this was a non-starter.
If you attended one or more of the several BOE Finance meetings you would have observed the debates that took place between all cash demands (that also forgot about the deals with the State last fall) and put the BOE at risk of losing the total of $2.4 Million for the two years from the State. Is that the vote that you are talking about? And your vote would have been opposite to Baker’s? And Superintendent Rabinowitz expressed her dismay at the move but was serious about not losing the $2.4 Million. And if the State then withdrew its support because the City/Finch had not done their part, where would the children have been? Pray explain your reasoning. Real-world problem … you bet … explain. Time will tell.
John, from what I know, this is a great summation of the corner Finch walked the BOE into on the MBR and state-city agreement. Thanks for it.
Are you implying Finch is smarter than the entire BOE? If that is the case our education system is in more trouble than we know.
If the state had held Finch to the MBR (state regulation, right?) this year, then the Bridgeport BOE wouldn’t have been left with this Hobson’s choice, or what I described as “the corner.” As for your leap to equate this falsely with one party being “smarter” … I would think that falls to the voters ultimately … and this year … that will be regarding Malloy. I for one will not be voting for the enabler-in-chief of Finch’s follies.
Andre Baker will certainly give his district a choice. He is smart, eloquent and assertive. Andre Baker does not have history and baggage. Although I believe Ernie has a right to run and has served his time, he should step aside while he is currently being dragged down with legal issues. I like Andre Baker. I believe he will serve the City well and bring the money to the City and his district not to mention respect in Hartford. Thank G-d for Mr. Day and invincible, this endorsement comes from a 57-year-old white, Jewish gay man who has just celebrated my birthday and this news is a great gift for those of us who believe in the future of Bridgeport.
Happy birthday, Steve. Many more.
🙂
Steve–Here is a little Mitzvah for your birthday!
www .thejewishweek.com/news/new-york/oconnors-grandfather-rabbi-bridgeport-0
That was a most fascinating article. Thank you.
Mazel Tov, Steve!
To Steve: Yom Huledet Same’ach!
Steve, that was nice you came out to tell us you’re Jewish. Happy birthday!
🙂
Bob, do you still think I owe an apology to Andre Baker? Andre Baker has proven to be easily manipulated by Finch and his cronies. Andre, how many of the people who raised money for you, knocked on doors, made phone calls for you to win your seat on the BBOE are backing you or supporting you? Not many.
I guess Baker feels he is the only one who can put the nails in Ernie Newton’s political coffin. Ernie raises a good point in regard to Baker’s commitment to serve the children and suddenly he has his eyes set on Hartford. To me, Baker’s move comes off not just as a quitter, but as a potential double-dipper. He couldn’t make up his mind to run or not to run. How long would it take him to decide whether or not to leave the BOE seat in the event he does get elected? Why jeopardize a BOE majority (even that’s in question) after so many of us fought for the change and normalcy currently on the BOE?
Our children (I have two) deserve BOE members who are going to give 100% and stay fully committed to fight the battles ahead. I supported Andre Baker for BOE not for State Representative/BOE. If he is so confident he will put the nails in Ernie’s political coffin, then step down from the BOE now. Short of that, his commitment to our education system remains questionable.
Like I said, I sincerely hope someone else in that district steps up to the plate. They deserve better than choosing between someone who will take orders from Finch (hope I am wrong) or someone who has been in jail for reasons related to the performance of his duty and who is facing trial for violations of campaign laws.
And Bridgeport deserves better than this never-ending political soap opera.
There are those who think Baker sold out the party that backed him, WFP. (I don’t, I think he just did what he does, votes with an independent mind.) If Baker is indeed supported by Finch, what is to stop him from making decisions independently in the State Rep seat as well? Baker is two for two right now independent of Finch supporting council people, he voted independent of the WFP voting block on the BOE. All of a sudden he is a robot for Finch? I highly doubt it. He will continue to do what he does; be his own man and act on behalf of the needs of the many.
Mustang Sally–Mr. Baker is a fine upstanding businessman who has a mind of his own. He’s far from a lemming. I wish him the best; he’d be a terrific State Representative.
So the felon known as Newton says Baker failed the children … Hmmm.
How about Newton failed Bridgeport and is unrepentant as to his own legal failures for which he should continue to pay the price as a convicted felon who stole from his constituents.
I guess people are angry Baker is not following his pledge to the people who got him elected.
“I pledge allegiance to the WFP and the teachers union for which it stands. One mentality under God, indivisible, with liver, tea and justice for just us.”
Maybe he picked what he thought was the best choice in a situation with a limited number of choices and none of them good.
BOE SPY, many of the people who volunteered their time to help elect Andre to the BBOE are not teachers and are not affiliated with the WFP. Many who volunteered for Andre were parents and community members who believed he would vote in the best interest of Bridgeport Public School children. How does Andre’s vote to place a new Harding High School on the largest brownfield site in CT without reading a single page of the proposed remediation plan or reviewing the site plan benefit children? How does voting to support the Mayor’s BBOE allocation for 2014/2015, which does not meet the requirements of state law, while underfunding Bridgeport Public Schools by millions, benefit children? How does voting not to allocate $5,000 to a law firm to complete legal research to determine whether there is any legal basis for a court challenge to block the two new charter school in Bridgeport, benefit Bridgeport Public School children?
Remember, when Andre was seeking support from the WFP for his election to the BBOE, he filled out a questionnaire stating he was opposed to charter schools. Andre has every right to support charter schools, however he should have been honest and forthright with the WFP and those who worked to support him from the very beginning. I assure you if he had been honest on this issue from the very beginning, the WFP and many of his volunteers would have not to supported him. In addition, he is a member of the Bridgeport Board of Education that governs the Bridgeport Public Schools, not charter schools. If he wants to support charter schools he should serve on a charter schools governing council, not on the BBOE. The same goes for Kenneth Moales and Joe Larcheveque.
As far as the charters are concerned: maybe Baker changed his mind when he better understood the problem and made the best choice for BPT’s scholars. But you would have to ask him.
The under MBR question is argumentum ad nauseam. Here is a quick synopsis. The mayor shorted the BOE $10 mil. He also provided some services the BOE would have had to pay for. The state paid $2.3 mil leaving the BOE 7.7 mil short. I understand they want the cash, but why? ‘Just because’ may not be the best answer. No one has posted the actual value of the in-kind services. Without having a complete understanding of the problem, making an informed choice would be impossible. For example: The BOE spends $1 mil suing and wins. The city pays the BOE $10 mil. The BOE pays the state back $2.3 mil and repays the city for the in-kind services. This is what you need to think about. The BOE is working inside $6.7 mil after a winter with four feet of snow at a pop. Accepting the mayor’s allocation may have been a better deal regardless of the law. To put it on a personal level, by law I am supposed to give you $1k/month. Instead, I pay your mortgage or rent. The choice to complain or not would come from the perspective of the recipient. What is the BOE looking for? A pigheaded obstinate victory or the best deal?
BOE SPY,
“… regardless of the law …”
Says who? Are you the law?
Your “personal level” drivel is overly simple and irrelevant–your signature methods.
No, I was saying the BOE chose to ignore the law because they were better off ignoring it. That law is there for the BOE’s benefit and forcing the issue would be to the BOE’s detriment. My example was there to clarify that theory. If my rent were $600/mo, I want the money. If my rent were $1200/mo, I keep my mouth shut. It really is that simple. Get it?
BOE SPY, what is quite clear is you do not have a full understanding of the Minimum Budget Requirement. Every time Mayor Finch is allowed to substitute the REQUIRED cash contribution with in-kind services, it allows the Mayor to reduce the MBR by the cash shortfall the following year. In essence, it creates a domino effect where year after year the Mayor is allowed to contribute less to the BBOE, not more. In addition, every time Mayor Finch does not meet the full CASH contribution, the state is required to apply a penalty the following year equal to TWICE the amount of the cash shortfall. For example: This year, the Mayor will underfund the BBOE by $2.1 million dollars. Therefore, next year he will be allowed to reduce his contribution to the BBOE by $2.1 million. In addition, the state will double that amount in an Education Cost Sharing reduction equal to TWICE the Mayor’s shortfall. This penalty will equate to $4.2 million. In order to receive a paltry pittance of $1.2 million from Malloy this year, the BBOE will lose $2.1 million this year, the Mayor will reduce his contribution by $2.1 million next year and the state will reduce their contribution by $4.2 million next year as a penalty. The end result is the BBOE received $1.2 this year, but will lose a total of $8.4 million this year and next year. That is a net loss of $7.2 million. I would like you to explain how this in any way shape or form benefits children and not Mayor Grinch.
I don’t think so. The MBR is based on the budget set by the BOE. Your budget reducing theory is how city departments work. Your next year’s budget is affected by the money you did not spend this year. I am not sure about the state’s cash contribution. All this is for naught. The deal is done. The MBR and Harding deal are over.
Bob, all 77 acres of the GE site are contaminated and only the 17 acres Harding High School will be built on will be remediated prior to Harding’s opening. The school will be fully occupied while the surrounding 60 acres are being remediated. I am unaware of any other school in CT that was intentionally built on contaminated land. There were contaminants discovered in Greenwich when there was work being done to expand an existing school, but I have not read or had access to any information the land was identified as contaminated land prior to the original school building being built. In regard to your charter school comments, investing $5,000 to have a reputable law firm conduct legal research to determine whether filing a lawsuit to block the two new charter schools has any merit would be a very wise investment. To imply spending $5,000 to save the Bridgeport Public Schools over $13 million dollars would not be a wise investment is pretty ridiculous. That $5,000 investment could save Bridgeport Public School children $13 million that could reduce class sizes, hire counselors, social workers, nurses, etc.
Staples High was built on an old NIKE missile site that was remediated.
cpeo.org/pubs/BFschools.pdf
Here is an article on it. Apparently it is a common thing. You just have to be careful. The charter schools themselves would reduce overcrowding and alleviate the need for all those new workers. To ‘save’ $13 mil (is that for one year?), the charters only have to take 1000 students if it costs BPT $13K/year/student. And those 1000 kids get the chance at a decent education. 🙂
BOE SPY, you wrote “I don’t think so” to my comments on the MBR. The CT General Statutes that govern the MBR are clear on this issue. In regard to the MBR and Harding deal being done and therefore the issue is moot, that is being very presumptuous.
Can you show us any analysis that shows opening two new charter school will allow the Bridgeport Public Schools to reduce staffing, therefore save money? I can assure you no such analysis exists. Charter Schools draw from large catchment areas if not the entire city, therefore they frequently draw from all 30 elementary schools. For example, Great Oaks will have 500 students by year five in multiple grade levels. That averages 16-17 students per school. Now divide the 17 students per school by five different grade levels. That averages three students per grade level, per school. Are you saying if Barnum School loses three students per grade level over the next five years, that will equate to reduced staffing levels at Barnum School? As usual, your comments have no basis in reality or facts.
Your student problem is out of touch. This would be a problem the BOE would deal with all the time. Students move, graduate, etc. What did the BOE do when the city closed Father Panik Village? All the kids who lived there and went to XYZ School now lived somewhere else. The BOE would redo the bus routes to compensate. Send kids to different schools and do away with the newly emptied class and send the freed-up teacher to replace a retiree. Losing or gaining three students per grade would be common yet you do not see empty classrooms.
Look, when push comes to shove, if the schools were better we would not have charter schools. The BOE made this bed now they have to sleep in it. These companies saw a need and a profit in filling that need and they still fill that need for less than you do. You have no ambition or plan to take away the need so your next best choice is to take away the profit. You claim you can’t fix it if the charters take away your money. But you couldn’t fix it last year or the years before that either. It is sad this is the BEST you can do. It is your own fault. I am crying in my soup for you.
Dave, just because Andre voted against what many thought was a frivolous and unwinable lawsuit concerning charter schools, you claim he is pro-charter and pro-Finch.
Also, please remember Andre would have been elected with or without the WFP line. The WFP needed Andre more than he needed them.
As to charters themselves, I am not a supporter however I am also not an attorney. Paying a law firm $5,000 to have them tell them they can win this lawsuit is probably the biggest waste of money over time that will then not be going to the Bridgeport school system.
And Dave, while you are at it, can you cite the specific measure and authority that makes the GE property the largest brownfield in the state of Connecticut? And while you are at it can you cite any other similar type of brownfields on which public schools have been built?
Bob–the answer to your question would be … all of them. The problem would be they did not know this when they built them and the brownfield was not remediated. Old Harding’s current football field is fill ‘donated’ by Raybestos, i.e.lead, asbestos and some dirt. At the time, maybe they didn’t know it was bad for you. Dave seems to think there are 20-acre, empty, ‘clean’ fields littering BPT. The WORLD’S largest gun and ammo (lead, chromium, mercury, asbestos, etc., etc.) producer. Remember, once the site is remediated it will be as clean as the Garden of Eden whether anyone has seen the plan or not. This argument is just a bunch of hype.
Right, BOE SPY,
Trust authority unquestioningly …
especially if you are the authority!
One is Greenwich High School, where soil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, and other dangerous toxins were found after a backhoe operator noticed oily dirt while digging a trench for a new Music Instructional Space and Auditorium project. The discovery shocked and angered parents and forced the temporary closure of athletic fields. Health officials eventually concluded the area was safe to use and the fields were reopened.
Testing at the former GE Industrial site has been conducted for 15 different metals. Thousands of samples of soil, groundwater, sediment and surface water have been taken.
Arsenic and lead were found at concentrations above those recommended for residential or school uses–16.3 percent of the samples tested for arsenic and 5.9 percent for lead. Exposure to arsenic, for a long enough time and in sufficient quantities, is carcinogenic, while lead has been linked to developmental delays in children. The highest concentration of arsenic at the site was 122 milligrams per kilogram, found some 13 feet below ground. The state considers 10 milligrams per kilogram a safe level for homes and schools. Lead was found at levels up to 2-1/2 times the recommended safe level of 400 milligrams per kilogram in the top four feet of soil.
The metals antimony, beryllium, copper, mercury and silver also exceeded the exposure criteria, as did polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy organic substances found in petroleum products like asphalt, coal and combustion products. In addition, extractable total petroleum hydrocarbons and vinyl chloride were found to exceed standards.
Yes, and six feet of soil will be removed from the site. Four feet where the buildings are going to stand. An impermeable membrane will be laid and clean soil put back to the original grade. Other than ‘concluding the area was safe to use,’ what did Greenwich do to remediate their problem? Most of the things found sink (not water soluble or airborne). Those that float will be removed with the soil or sealed under the membrane. The term exposure means you have to get them inside you or eat them. Since they will be six feet underground or under a building, that is not likely. Then you have the problem, where are you going to build the school. There is no, nada, nothing to suggest any other site would be better than this one. What abandoned factory site in town would you suggest using?
From my Feb 11, 2014 notes I took (not paid) at the public BOE Facilities meeting:
Four feet of clean soil from the school site; two feet over areas to be paved.
Work a little harder to be correct in your masked-man routine, Adam and Ryan. You’re as sloppy as your boss.
Sorry, you are correct. My bad. Here are the minutes to that meeting. What you said is on page 7 at the top.
www .bridgeportedu.com/Board/docs/2013-2014/Minutes/FacilitiesMinutes_2-11-14(2).pdf
www .bridgeportedu.com/Board/docs/2013-2014/Minutes/FacilitiesMinutes_2-11-14(2).pdf
Thanks for including this link!
BOE SPY, and you say you are not getting paid by somebody for your comments, NO WAY.
NO, Ron. Does the word Google mean anything to you? Once Pete gave me the date of the meeting, finding the minutes was easy.
I think he is Torres.
BOE SPY, there is another location that is perfectly suitable to build a new Harding High School; that would be its current location. The new school is being built for a third less students, not more students. DEEP has verified the current Harding High School site has NOT been tested for contaminants, therefore, your claim the current location is contaminated is baseless and unsupported with documented test results. By the way, if the current Harding High School site is so contaminated, why does Bridgeport Hospital want the land to expand their hospital? Do you think it would be wise to place ill children and adults in a hospital built on such contaminated land?
They do know Harding is contaminated with asbestos. There are stickers on the vent system that say so. For the rest, you are correct, you don’t know. You choose to believe it is clean and I choose to believe it is not. Nonetheless, it would be very expensive to find out and ‘starting over’ would add even more expense. All this on some unconfirmed hope the old site is better than the new one. What if we do decide to use the old site just to find out that is nearly as bad, just as bad or worse than the current one? We know the lot has problems. The asbestos in the school itself would be a starter. BPT Hospital only needs to cover the lot with concrete. Contamination capped. Problem solved. The BOE would have a bigger problem. Concrete football fields are hard on the athletes and lead to head injuries.
BOE SPY, so the new Harding High School project should move forward because starting over will be expensive. Well I guess we should just damn the THOUSANDS of children and staff who may develop serious illnesses due to the proven contamination of the GE site. Of course, you make perfect sense, money before the health and well-being of human life. Not to mention all the money that could end up being paid in lawsuits from negligence.
The lawsuit money would come from GE. Another reason for GE to do a good job. The city did due diligence by hiring their own expert to ensure the work was done properly. Again, you are assuming the current Harding site is better than the future one and the remediation will be ineffective. What about the lawsuits if we keep people in the old Harding when we could have gotten them out sooner? I can’t believe you are putting children’s lives in jeopardy for political gains.
And what do I have to gain from this? You have absolutely NO basis to claim the current Harding High School site is contaminated, however there is factual testing data that unequivocally proves the GE site is severely contaminated. The vast majority of brownfield sites in Bridgeport were created due to the Manufacturing Revolution that was prevalent in New England by the mid-1900s. The current Harding High School was opened on September 9, 1925 which makes it 89 years old. Do you have any evidence the land was contaminated prior to it being built in 1924? I sincerely doubt it. Once again, you lack ANY facts, analysis, testing, etc. to substantiate your claims. Claiming building a new Harding High School on its current site is likely to lead to serious illnesses and litigation has no merit. If it did have any merit, there would already be many diagnosed illnesses and litigation from the THOUSANDS of students, faculty and staff who have spent significant time in Harding over the last 89 years.
Dave–did you forget about the asbestos? A potentially airborne carcinogen. Remington Arms was built in 1915. The arsenic on the site came from their coal-fired heating plant. The original Harding built in 1924, nine years later, also had a coal-fired heating plant. Ipso facto, Harding has arsenic as well as lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium and selenium, all byproducts of burning coal. There is also data that unequivocally proves the GE site will be remediated. Your term ‘severely contaminated’ is a Pelto-ism or exaggeration.
Brownfields and contamination are a legacy of retreating manufacturing operations at a time when “the shape of things to come” was not as clear to folks in City Halls and State Houses as it was to the legal departments of those firms. But that is a different topic for another day, other than to repeat the new Longfellow School that would have required some remediation for PCBs was also located in an area where early industrial refuse was dumped, a part of land reclamation efforts before we had Green Mayors.
Anyway, interim Superintendent Vallas was able to move from a building renovation to do a complete land and building reworking despite the contamination … and likely with that same “residential standard,” two feet of clean soil below a building (perhaps with an impermeable barrier as well) and parking lots and four feet of clean soil below grass and bushes. And Columbus had remediation issues that were “solved” and later “corrected finally?” And Black Rock School may have had a “contaminant hiccup?” So is there some expertise available? Have drilling wells provided information in 2013? Are we following the normal routine for this type of problem? It seems we are.
But it also feels like there is another agenda that is at work that wishes to slow down or stop the Harding move and use the specter of “kids and cancer” as a way to accomplish their work. Can we get to a whole set of “transparent” alternatives from those protesting steady movement? Finding the “truth” can proceed, and fashioning a solution that is “fair to all concerned” can also proceed. In the meantime, relationships of respect in our community can be fashioned that will last into the future, maybe. Time will tell.
*** The last things that should be coming out of E. Newton’s mouth should not be any type of mudslinging towards Mr.Baker. Talk about selling out or selling the public short goes without saying when discussing Mr.Newton’s CT political career while in State Office according to the Feds and State Judicial System and news coverage by many local and CT State news agencies, no? ***