Archive for the ‘Articles’ Category
Senator Spilka, Allyson Perron from the American Heart Association, and Rep. Atkins pose after the event.
LAWMAKERS PROMOTE HEART DISEASE AWARENESS: Calling it the nation’s number one killer, more than 40 lawmakers gathered at the State House Wednesday to raise heart disease awareness and promote choices people can make to stay healthy. Women’s Legislative Caucus co-chair Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord) recalled the late Rep. Deborah Blumer of Framingham, who died after suffering a heart attack in 2006, and she she believes men’s heart problems often receive more attention than women. “This movement to call attention to the dangers for women is particularly important,” said Atkins, who joined her colleagues in wearing red clothing as part of “Go Red For Women” awareness activities held with the American Heart Association. Caucus co-chair Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) urged anyone who believes they may be experiencing heart problems to immediately call for help. “Unfortunately,” Spilka said, “so many families, if not all families, have been touched by heart issues.” According to the heart association, Hispanic women are likely to develop heart disease 10 years earlier than other women and more women die of heart disease than all forms of cancer combined. Also, while eight million women in the United States are living with heart disease only one in six American women believes that heart disease is her greatest health threat. Awareness campaign organizers advise women to take steps to understand the history of heart disease in their own families, adopt or continue healthy eating habits and exercise frequently to avoid developing risks for heart disease. 1:44 P.M.
- Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo, left, asks Prof. Seongkyu Yoon, right, a question about the Massachusetts BioManufacturing Center on a recent visit to campus. Looking on are, from left, Rep. Stephen DiNatale, Rep. Cory Atkins, Rep. Thomas Sannicandro and Rep. Denise Provost.
On Tuesday, January 31 I joined the Speaker, the House Chairman of the Higher Education Committee and other members of the committee at UMass Lowell to learn about the ways research universities like Lowell are helping drive innovation and economic development. Watch the YouTube video here – UMass Lowell Visit
02/03/2012
By Renae Lias
More than a dozen legislators — mostly members of the Massachusetts Higher Education Committee — recently saw for themselves how UMass Lowell’s research and development helps foster an innovative, growing economy. House Speaker Robert DeLeo joined a group of legislators that the committee’s House chairman, Rep. Thomas Sannicandro, had gathered for the visit.
After an overview from Chancellor Marty Meehan, legislators heard from business representatives — Triton Systems Chief Technology Officer Ken Mahmud and 10 CEOs of start-up medical device companies operating out of the M2D2 incubator — who said UMass Lowell is helping them to develop new products.
In the basement of Ball Hall, plastics engineering student Greg Pigeon explained why he chose UMass Lowell over WPI’s honors program. He said he could learn exactly what he needed to be successful in plastics manufacturing through his co-op job at U.S. Army Natick Research Labs and through his coursework. Nanomanufacturing Center Director Prof. Joey Mead explained how nanomanufacturing research fits hand-in-glove with that classroom and co-op experience.
In the Engineering Building, Prof. Seongkyu Yoon pointed out that small biotech companies access UMass Lowell’s equipment and expertise as they seek to produce new biopharmaceuticals.
A tour of the Emerging Technologies and Innovation Center, which is nearing its final phase of construction, showcased the place where so much of UMass Lowell’s laboratory and industry collaboration will take place in the near future, especially in nanomedicine, personalized pharmaceuticals and medical device research.
Bill boosts oversight of special education
Lawmakers work to prevent abuses alleged in Billerica
By Michael Rezendes | Globe Staff January 25, 2012
Save Against the backdrop of federal and state corruption investigations, the Massachusetts House unanimously approved legislation yesterday designed to increase oversight of the state’s troubled network of 30 educational collaboratives, which serve more than 8,000 special needs students.
The bill, which follows Senate approval of a similar measure, stems from last year’s scandal surrounding the Billerica-based Merrimack Special Education Collaborative, in which John B. Barranco, its former executive director, stands accused of transferring $11.5 million to a related nonprofit and using the funds to cover lavish salaries for himself, a former girlfriend, and a close circle of associates.
“This puts in place a new governance structure, new reporting requirements, and new requirements for transparency that are designed to prevent the kind of abuses that took place with Merrimack,’’ said state Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch, a Wellesley Democrat and the House chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Education.
The bill approved yesterday, a version of which legislators expect Governor Deval Patrick to sign, would require the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to name a voting member to each of the collaborative’s board of directors. It would also require all collaboratives to undergo an annual financial audit.
In a move aimed directly at abuses allegedly uncovered at the Merrimack collaborative, the legislation would bar any employee of an educational collaborative from working at a related nonprofit or for-profit organization. It would also prohibit collaborative board members and their executive directors from simultaneously serving as board members, executive directors, or employees of related nonprofit or for-profit groups.
Last June, Inspector General Gregory W. Sullivan accused Barranco of transferring $11.5 million from the Merrimack collaborative to a nonprofit that he controlled, the Chelmsford-based Merrimack Education Center, and using the money for excessive salaries and perks, including $50,000 in personal expenses and Kentucky Derby tickets.
In addition, State Auditor Suzanne M. Bump found evidence that the Merrimack collaborative misspent more than $30 million in public funds. And she found a pattern of lax accounting practices and questionable compensation at other collaboratives.
The collaboratives are consortiums of local school districts that band together to reduce the cost of educating students with mental, physical, medical, and behavioral disabilities.
In August, the Globe reported that federal prosecutors are conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into spending and accounting practices at the Merrimack collaborative.
The Globe also reported that the collaborative has been the subject of several additional investigations by state agencies and officials, including state Attorney General Martha Coakley and state Treasurer Steven Grossman, who are investigating possible abuses of the state pension system.
Sullivan discovered last year that Barranco hired some individuals to work for the nonprofit education center but listed them on the payroll of the collaborative, a public agency, allowing those individuals to enhance the value of their public pensions.
Yesterday, Senate President Therese Murray, Democrat of Plymouth, said legislators moved swiftly to prevent additional abuses like those at the Merrimack collaborative, in part because of longstanding concern about the high cost of educating special needs students.
“One thing we get cautioned about all the time by school superintendents and mayors is the high cost of special education,’’ Murray said. “With Merrimack, you had more than $10 million diverted from students with special needs to people who lined their pockets. It’s pretty outrageous.’’
Murray said the House bill approved yesterday is so similar to a Senate bill approved earlier this month that legislators could do away with naming a conference committee and instead sort out minor differences informally before sending a final version to Patrick. Murray expects the governor to sign the measure.
Yesterday, Bump lauded the Legislature for taking swift action. “It’s terrific to have such a determined response by the Legislature in such short order,’’ she said.
Stephen J. Theall, executive director of the Massachusetts Organization of Educational Collaboratives, an umbrella group of collaboratives, also praised the bills approved by the House and Senate.
“These reforms will greatly enhance collaboratives’ ability to achieve their core mission of bringing quality education to special needs students throughout Massachusetts, all while saving taxpayers millions of dollars by pooling school district resources,’’ he said.
Michael Rezendes can be reached at rezendes@globe.com.
Posted in: Articles on 01/21/2012 | No Comments
State Rep. Cory Atkins told protesters it's "an outright felony" corporations can give unlimited money for political donations while citizens can't. She asked demonstrators to work to pass a state resolution, S.772, calling on Congress to overturn the high court's decision.
BOSTON—About 200 people in Boston joining a national “Occupy the Courts” protest on Friday to mark the second anniversary of a Supreme Court decision on campaign financing.
They rallied at the federal courthouse against a ruling that says the First Amendment prevents government from limiting election spending by corporations and unions.
State Rep. Cory Atkins told protesters it’s “an outright felony” corporations can give unlimited money for political donations while citizens can’t. She asked demonstrators to work to pass a state resolution calling on Congress to overturn the high court’s decision.
John Hill, local spokesman for rally organizer Move to Amend, also said the government should reverse the 2010 decision.
“To the justices of the Supreme Court: A corporation cannot love. A corporation cannot cry. A corporation cannot dream. A corporation cannot die. Corporations are not people,” he told a cheering crowd. “… Undo what has been done and let the people rule.”
Mustering to the sound of fife and drum, a few protestors even dressed their dogs in pinstripes and red ties, asking why canines couldn’t vote if big businesses basically could.
Watch the video – Super PACs
“Occupy Courts”: Movement Targets Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision
In the landmark 2010 Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions could spend unlimited money on political speech. The 5-4 decision struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign law, which according to the court, limited the first-amendment rights of independent organizations, unions and corporations. Nearly two years after this decision, a new movement dubbed “Occupy the Courts” has emerged, vowing to overturn Citizens United. A dozen U.S. states have introduced legislation that would effectively amend the Constitution, the only way to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling. Most recently, two lawmakers from Massachusetts introduced “The People’s Rights Resolution” that calls on Congress to “pass and send to the states for ratification a Constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.”
The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote in a recent editorial that many local governments are taking action to end undisclosed corporate money in elections. City councils that have passed resolutions opposing Citizens United include Los Angeles, Oakland, New York, Albany, Duluth and Boulder. There are also Congressional members seeking a Constitutional remedy, including Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards; Senator Tom Udall and Representative Betty Sutton; Representative Ted Deutsch and Senator Bernie Sanders; Representative Jim McGovern; Representative John Yarmuth and Republican Representative Walter Jones and Representative Keith Ellison.
The state that has taken a firm stance against excessive corporate spending is Montana. Its Supreme Court upheld 100-year-old election spending limits last December, essentially rebuffing Citizens United. If the decision is appealed, and it is widely expected to be, the case could be the first challenge to the controversial Citizens United decision.
Montana Justice James C. Nelson dissented in the 5-2 decision but opined: “Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
The fury behind the Citizens United Case stems, in part, from the creation of the “Super PAC” — a political action organization that can spend unlimited funds to elect or defeat a candidate. Their rise has altered the campaign trail, as the influence of corporate (and partisan) donors, who usually remain anonymous, grows. Americans are allowed to donate a maximum of $2,500 per candidate, but Super PACs provide a way to circumvent campaign finance law, accepting checks of any amount from an individual, union or corporation.
The one limitation: Super PACs cannot directly engage with a specific candidate, though many are seen as a “virtual extension” of a particular campaign. Karl Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC has raised $33.3 million, the Americans for Prosperity Super PAC, run by the Koch brothers, has pledged to spend $200 million in 2012, and it’s estimated that 250 Super PACs will spend a combined $600 million to $1 billion during the 2012 election cycle. (For more on Super PACs see: It’s a Bird! It’s a Plane! It’s — It’s Well Complicated)
In the above video, the Center for Public Integrity’s John Dunbar tells The Daily Ticker’s Aaron Task that little can be done to change this new era of money in politics.
“It’s a speed bump,” Dunbar says about state action to overturn Citizens United. “There’s no higher authority of free speech” than the Supreme Court.
As a result of Citizens United and its Super PAC spawn, “Americans will have to work really hard” to determine who’s telling them who to vote for, he says.
Posted in: Articles, Cory's Blog on 01/19/2012 | No Comments
The campaign crusade
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff | Thursday, January 19, 2012 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Editorials
There is a process in place to amend the U.S. Constitution — a process as old as the document itself — and fortunately it involves more than getting a non-binding resolution passed by a single state Legislature.
Two local lawmakers have authored a resolution aimed at overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United, where the court found that political spending is a form of protected free speech and that restrictions on corporate or union campaign spending were therefore unconstitutional. They held a press conference yesterday to push for passage of the resolution, which calls on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would “restore fair elections” and send it to the states for ratification.
They’re not alone, of course. The forces united against “corporate personhood” (and it’s always corporate personhood they decry, not union personhood) have been howling about the implications of Citizens United since the ruling two years ago this week.
The resolution, sponsored by Sen. James Eldridge (D-Acton) and Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord) warns of dire threats to our democracy, decries the “corporate takeover” of the First Amendment and proclaims that the free speech provision of the Constitution “was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations.”
Well, hey, who needs a Supreme Court when you have a couple of partisan politicians from Massachusetts who can interpret the Constitution all on their own!
The high court ruling upheld the right of the government to require disclosure of political spending which strikes us as more than reasonable. But if opponents of the ruling really want to take the necessary steps to overturn the decision by amending the Constitution by all means that’s their right (and some of those superPAC ads can be rather annoying).
But they’ll need more than purple prose to get it done.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1396974
STATE CAPITOL BRIEFS – AFTERNOON EDITION – WEDNESDAY, JAN. 18, 2012
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
SUPER PAC SPENDING, SCOTUS DECISION RIPPED AT PRESSER: Advocates for voter participation joined eight lawmakers Wednesday to call for an end to a “corporate takeover of the First Amendment,” which they say has been fueled by a two-year-old Supreme Court decision that paved the way for unlimited corporate and union spending to influence elections, often anonymously. Sen. James Eldridge (D-Acton) decried the influence of corporate spending on Massachusetts policies. He described opposition to a bottle recycling law, “real health care reform,” and “fair taxation” as examples of policies that have faced corporate resistance, even before the Supreme Court decision, known as Citizens United. “Corporations are not people,” said Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord). “They have no allegiance to our country.” The Supreme Court decision, issued in 2010, concluded that corporations and organized labor could spend unlimited funds as independent expenditures intended to influence an election without specifically endorsing or coordinating with a candidate. The 5-4 decision has led to the rise of so-called Super PACS, vehicles for corporate political spending with few disclosure requirements, which have already shown an ability to inundate TV stations in Republican presidential primary states. Although Super PACS are forbidden from coordinating directly with the candidates they support, Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield) argued that there is little doubt candidates collaborate with supportive entities. “It’s a complete farce,” she said. The lawmakers, joined by officials from MassVote, Common Cause, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, the League of Women Voters and Free Speech for People, called for the passage of S 772, a bill that would call on Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to “restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.” The bill’s preamble describes the Citizens United decision as “extreme” and argues that it will “unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history,” which “presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy.” In its ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that corporate speech can’t be restricted because of First Amendment free speech rights. “Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy – it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people – political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence,” according to the ruling, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined the court’s four conservative justices in support of the ruling. “The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.” Proponents of a constitutional amendment pointed to a May 2010 Suffolk University poll showing that 82 percent of Massachusetts residents disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling. 2:40 p.m.
Posted in: Articles on 01/10/2012 | No Comments
AS TECHNOLOGY FUELS DISTRACTED DRIVING, SOLUTIONS DRAW LITTLE SUPPORT
By Kyle Cheney
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 10, 2012……Although the basement room at the capitol was ringed with lobbyists and legislative aides, only one person spoke Tuesday on a slate of bills intended to restrict the use of cell phones by drivers in Massachusetts, a lack of interest that stunned lawmakers less than two years after they adopted a ban on texting by motorists.
The dismal turnout at the hearing was startling because it came just weeks after a national transportation safety agency recommended that all use of handheld phones by drivers be banned, fanning a debate across the country about distracted driving and what states can do to keep the roads safe.
After a few awkward glances, a crowded panel of lawmakers, unaccustomed to prolonged silence, opted to fill it by offering their own views on cell phone bans – a collection of opinions that demonstrated the nuances of the policy and the difficulty of threading a sweeping ban through the Legislature.
“Anybody putting one of those things in their hand while driving is potentially committing suicide,” said Rep. James Miceli (D-Tewksbury). “I think it’s ludicrous that we go on year after year … the lobbyists come right in, like they’re here today, come right in and kill the issue.”
Miceli reminded his colleagues that the House has supported an all-out ban on handheld phones before, while the policy hit a dead end in the Senate, where senators argued that holding a phone isn’t dangerous – it’s the conversation itself that presents a distraction.
Committee co-chairs Rep. William Straus (D-Mattapoisett) and Sen. Thomas McGee (D-Lynn) defended the 2010 law, but added they have heard of no opposition to the outright ban on handheld phones.
“The need to get a texting ban done got us so far last session. We’re hopeful we can continue to work on the issue with some success,” Straus said.
McGee, who supported an outright ban on driver use of handheld phones last year, acknowledged that he had anticipated a larger crowd at the hearing.
“We expected this to be a much more attended hearing than one person coming in to testify,” he said. “We do get a lot of information. We do get a lot of feedback and hopefully we continue to get that.”
Citing highway deaths and injuries from distracted driving, the National Transportation Safety Board in December called on all 50 states to implement a ban on motorist use of non-emergency portable electronic devices and a high-visibility enforcement campaign
Last month, Gov. Deval Patrick said a total ban on cell phone use in cars “may be impractical,” but he signaled that he would be open to a move toward hands-free devices.
“I haven’t thought about it much,” he said during an appearance on WTKK. “Certainly the question of texting is a serious problem. I am also aware that using a cell phone is or can be distracting. Hands-free is one response to that.”
Lawmakers agreed in 2010 to prohibit all drivers from texting while on the road, and they barred junior operators – those under 18 years old – from holding phones except in emergencies. The law, signed by Gov. Deval Patrick, faced instant criticism from police, who are being asked to distinguish between drivers using their cell phones to place a call and those using them to text, and to judge whether a person using a cell phone is under or over 18.
The lone public testimony Tuesday came from Jerry Cibley, a Foxborough resident who recalled his son’s fatal accident, likely the result of a cell phone-related distraction. Cibley called last year’s texting ban a “miserable failure” and urged lawmakers to support additional measures to educate drivers on safe cell phone use and, potentially, to require the use of hands-free devices.
“If you’ve lost a child, you can truly understand what I’m talking about. If you’ve never lost a child, there’s no way that you can have any type of understanding,” he said. “Losing a parent, that’s a cakewalk, folks. Losing a child is unbearable. It’s been five years and I still cry myself to sleep many a night.”
Cibley emphasized that he doesn’t support an outright ban on phone use, but said if there had been stronger laws in place, his son might have survived.
“If my son had been on a hands-free device that day, he would be here. He would be alive. I wouldn’t be going through misery,” he said, adding, “I promised my son in his eulogy that we would do something. We would save lives. I’m asking you. I’m begging you.”
The committee considered four bills (H 1817, H 3069, S 1732 and S 1764) that would ban the use of cell phones by drivers, unless they are connected to hands-free devices. The proposals are sponsored by Rep. Joseph Wagner (D-Chicopee), Rep Cory Atkins (D-Concord), Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) and Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), respectively.
The 2010 law bans all operators of motor vehicles, including law enforcement, from text messaging while driving, with fines of $100 for the first offense, $250 for the second offense and $500 for subsequent offenders; made texting while driving a primary offense; bans public transportation vehicle operators from using any type of cell phone or mobile device, whether handheld or hands-free; and requires the Registry of Motor Vehicles to create a public awareness campaign on the dangers of distracted driving.
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville), a member of the Transportation Committee, said Tuesday that she hoped the Senate would support a more incremental restriction on handheld cell phone use by drivers, prohibiting their use in school zones.
“I think that we should ban certainly handheld cell phones altogether. As we know from past experiences, this has proved politically impossible because the Senate did not agree on that position,” she said. “I would hope the Senate would at least agree to a ban in school zones. I have been aghast to see commuters blowing through marked crosswalks with crossing guards in them, through red lights, often on their cell phones while walking a child to school or observing other people walking their children to school.”
Provost filed one of three bills (H 3086) on school-zone cell phone bans. The others (S 1765 and H 935) were filed by Montigny and Rep. Elizabeth Poirier (R-North Attleboro), respectively.
-END-
1/10/2012
With leashes in hand, members of the House of Representatives adopted a service dog in training for the day Nov. 2.
STATE REPS HELP HIGHLIGHT WORK OF ASSISTANCE DOGS
By Colleen Quinn
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, NOV. 2, 2011….When Kevin Lambert returned from Iraq in 2006 he was suffering from a spinal injury and post traumatic stress disorder.
A dog came to the rescue of the man who once served in the U.S. Army 172nd Striker Brigade combat unit.
Lambert, the director of special populations and programs for the Massachusetts Department of Veterans’ Services, was part of a research project with the U.S. Department of Defense that placed assistance dogs with returning veterans suffering from injuries and PTSD. Now, his dog, Ronnie, never leaves his side. A black Labrador retriever, Ronnie was trained by the National Education Assistance Dog Services (NEADS), a non-profit organization based in Princeton that trains dogs for the disabled and deaf.
On Monday, lawmakers armed with doggie treats took on the task of training the dogs for the day. Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord) invited the dogs and their handlers to the State House, hoping to familiarize the canine companions with a work environment. Atkins has trained dogs for years through NEADS.
Along with Atkins, ten legislators volunteered to take dogs for the day – Rep. Patricia Haddad (D-Somerset), Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera (D-Springfield), Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick), Rep. James Vallee (D-Franklin), Rep. Sarah Peake (D-Provincetown), Rep. Sean Garballey (D-Arlington), Rep. Kate Hogan (D-Stow), Rep. Kimberly Ferguson (R-Holden), Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) and Rep. Carolyn Dykema (D-Holliston).
The dogs were going to spend the day at a Democratic caucus, a formal House session, and local delegation meetings, lawmakers said.
Atkins, whose district includes two prisons, said her involvement started several years ago when she was talking about workforce development for soon-to-be released prisoners and someone mentioned the program, affectionately dubbed “puppies on parole,” she said. The dogs are first trained by prisoners at no cost to the state, and on the weekends placed with “foster families” who socialize them by taking them to restaurants, shopping malls, movies, parks – anywhere someone might go.
Prisoners spend more than a year training the dogs, starting when they are puppies. NEADS places more than 50 dogs a year around the country, and since the organization’s inception 35 years ago, approximately 1,300 dogs have been placed with disabled and deaf people, according to Gerry DeRoche, chief executive officer of NEADS. Currently, there are 75 dogs placed with prisoners in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
The organization privately fundraises to cover all the costs of taking care of the dogs during training, from shots to biscuits. The breeds which make the best assistance dogs tend to be labs, golden retrievers, poodles, labradoodles and some collies, according to DeRoche.
DeRoche spent his career as a banker, but about two years ago decided to make a shift to “do something I thought would have a real impact.” He brought the dogs to Beacon Hill to draw attention to the program.
“We think it is important to have as many people as possible know what the dogs do for our clients,” he said.
Many disabled clients refer to their lives as “before I got my dog, and after I got my dog,” DeRoche said.
“A lot of them go from isolation to feeling comfortable going out in the community,” he added.
The dogs become like an “ambassador” for disabled people, Atkins said, making it easier for people to approach them to pet the dog. Some dogs are placed with autistic children, and go to school with them.
For veterans suffering from PTSD, the dogs comfort them when certain situations trigger their stress and anxiety levels. Lambert, who spent more than 16 months in Iraq, said he sometimes has trouble in crowded places. The dog’s presence calms him.
“She is always focused on me,” he said, while the dog laid at his feet looking up at him. “For those of us with PTSD, the dogs break down those emotional barriers we have.”
Because of his spinal injury, Lambert walks with a cane, and has trouble bending over to pick things up. Ronnie is always there to do it for him, he said. She picks up his cane with her mouth if it drops; flips light switches on; opens automatic doors by pushing the button; and can even open the refrigerator.
“If I drop my keys under the car, she will go into a low crawl and go under the car for the keys,” he said.
Peake, one of the legislators taking a dog for the day, said she thought it would be a good opportunity to support the program. While she said she was taking the responsibility seriously, she said, “I have to admit there is a little bit of fun in this too, having a dog in the office during the day.”
Haddad, the Speaker Pro Tempore, said she planned to take her dog to the Democratic caucus, and then head to the House formal session.
“I am hoping they will let the dog in the caucus,” she joked. “I will bring the dog into the chamber. Maybe I will be in the chair today and put the dog in the chair.”
Linsky, who took a dog named Dora, said he has always been fascinated by assistance dogs. When he saw the program was coming to the State House, he signed up immediately, he said.
Garballey, who has had dogs his whole life, said he thought the day of training would highlight how “important these dogs are to some of the most vulnerable in our communities.”
“If I can bring awareness to that today as a state representative then I want to do that,” he said.
After having the dog for a little more than an hour, Dykema said, “It is so relaxing to have the dog at work, to be able to reach down and just pet her.”
“I will miss her tomorrow when she is gone,” she said.
END
11/02/2011
Serving the working press since 1910
RSS Feed
Facebook