Gov. Lamont eyes state homeschooling reforms
Lamont's remarks represent the first definitive signal that he's eyeing policy changes following the arrest of a Waterbury woman who was charged with a slew of crimes after her stepson told police he'd been held captive in her home for more than two decades.
Nearly $200,000 raised to help alleged Waterbury captive
'I'd like to talk with the legislature about ways we can stay in better communication – make sure those kids are being well protected, not just in school, but at home school as well,' Lamont said in response to questions from News 8 at a press conference on Tuesday.
'When they come into school, that's an early radar system,' Lamont continued. 'We have a better idea of how they're doing and what's going on at the home.'
But when students leave traditional public and private school systems, Lamont said, 'We lose a little bit of touch — as happened in this case over a period of, say, 20 years.'
News 8 also pressed Lamont on the status of internal inquiries into the actions of state agencies responsible for child welfare.
'I think that's ongoing,' Lamont replied. 'Look, DCF was there, they visited. I'm told the family said, 'DCF is bothering us,' and DCF referred it to the Waterbury Police. But you're right something dropped through the cracks and this went on for 20 years.'
The governor's suggestion that there should be changes to the state's system of homeschool regulations was met with sharp criticism by one of the state's leading Republicans.
'To turn this into a homeschool issue, to me is disingenuous,' State Rep. Vincent Candelora, the Republican leader in the state House of Representatives, said. 'It really – to me – smells of 'don't let a crisis go to waste.''
Candelora said he believed that the Waterbury case was being used to advance attacks on homeschooling.
'Democrats love bureaucracy,' Candelora said. 'So, the more people they can get into the government system to regulate – that's what they enjoy doing.'
As a political battle brews over the future of the state's homeschooling laws, some lawmakers are calling for public hearings on the Waterbury case.
'I can't see how this won't have a public hearing,' State Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr., a Waterbury Democrat, said.
State Rep. Joe Polletta, a Republican who also represents part of Waterbury, has been outspoken along with many of his Republican colleagues calling for public hearings.
'I think the best thing we can do is have a public hearing,' State Sen. Heather Somers, a Republican, said. 'Air out what happened. Learn more information before we start accusing one particular group of being the problem.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to check out Federal Reserve's pricey renovations
The Federal Reserve, known for its tight lips, structured formality and extraordinary power to shape the global economy, finds itself putting out the welcome mat for President Donald Trump. Trump and his allies say a $US2.5 billion ($A3.8 billion) renovation of the Fed headquarters and a neighbouring building reflects an institution run amok — a belief they hope to verify in a Thursday afternoon tour of the construction site. The Fed allowed reporters to tour the building before the visit by Trump, who in his real estate career, has bragged about his lavish spending on architectural accoutrements that gave a Versailles-like golden flair to his buildings. The visit is an attempt to further ratchet up pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whom the Republican president has relentlessly attacked for not cutting borrowing costs. Trump's attacks have put the Fed, a historically independent institution, under a harsh spotlight. Undermining its independence could reduce the Fed's ability to calm financial markets and stabilise the US economy. "This stubborn guy at the Fed just doesn't get it — Never did, and never will," Trump said Wednesday on Truth Social. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" On Thursday, reporters wound through cement mixers, front loaders, and plastic pipes as they got a close-up view of the active construction site that encompasses the Fed's historic headquarters, known as the Marriner S Eccles building, and a second building across 20th Street in Washington. Fed staff pointed out new blast-resistant windows and seismic walls that were needed to comply with modern building codes and security standards set out by the Department of Homeland Security. The Fed has to build with the highest level of security in mind, Fed staff said, including something called "progressive collapse," in which only parts of the building would fall if hit with explosives. Sensitivity to the president's pending visit among Fed staff was high during the tour. Reporters were ushered into a small room outside the Fed's boardroom, where 19 officials meet eight times a year to decide whether to change short-term interest rates. The room, which will have a security booth, is oval-shaped, and someone had written "Oval Office" on plywood walls. The Fed staff downplayed the inscription as a joke. When reporters returned through the room later, it had been painted over. Plans for the renovation were first approved by the Fed's governing board in 2017. Fed staff also said tariffs and inflationary increases in building material costs also drove up costs. Trump in 2018 imposed a 25 per cent duty on steel and 10 per cent on aluminum. Steel prices are up about 60 per cent since the plans were approved in June, while construction materials costs overall are up about 50 per cent, according to government data. Fed staff also pointed to the complication of historic renovations — both buildings have significant preservation needs. Constructing a new building on an empty site would have been cheaper. The Fed has previously attributed much of the project's cost to underground construction. It is also adding three underground levels of parking for its second building. Initially, the central bank proposed building more above ground, but ran into Washington, DC's height restrictions, forcing more underground construction. When construction began in 2022, the Fed estimated the cost at $US1.9 billion ($A2.9 billion), and it has since grown by about 30 per cent. Trump wants Powell to dramatically slash the Fed's benchmark interest rate under the belief that inflation is not a problem, but Powell wants to see how Trump's tariffs impact the economy before making any rate cuts that could potentially cause inflation to accelerate. The renovation project has emerged as the possible justification by Trump to take the extraordinary step of firing Powell for cause, an act that some administration officials have played down, given that the Fed chair's term ends in May 2026. Pushing Powell out also would almost certainly jolt global markets, potentially having the opposite effect that Trump wants as he pushes for lower borrowing costs. When asked last week if the costly rebuilding could be grounds to fire Powell, Trump said, "I think it sort of is". Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Obama, sedition and Trump's urgent need to distract
To any American with an extremely short memory or perhaps a desire only to see the world through Donald Trump's eyes, the recent memo from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the call from President Trump to investigate former President Barack Obama over the memo's claims of 'treasonous conspiracy' over claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election must be alarming. Talk of 'overwhelming evidence' and a 'yearslong coup,' 'seditious conspiracy' and 'treason' sure sound pretty serious. Well, they do until you quickly review your notes and recognize that A, President Trump has an urgent need for distraction given his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the administration's failure to — despite big promises to the conspiracy-hungry during the presidential campaign — release details of the investigation into the late American financier and sex offender. And B, this is a subject that has been investigated to death with no fewer than four official inquiries, including a 2020 U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report (written while the GOP had Senate control) and the special report authored by Trump-appointed special counsel John Durham that came out in 2023. And what did they find? There was ample reason to worry about Russian interference in the 2016 race, and it was clear the Kremlin didn't want Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. Was then-candidate Trump complicit in these efforts? Nope, not in a manner those various investigators could prove. But Russian interference? There was ample evidence of computer hacking, of digging through emails and of using intermediaries to undermine Clinton (remember WikiLeaks?). Or how about simply remembering Robert S. Mueller III? The special counsel indicted a dozen Russians, none of whom has ever stood trial because they could not be extradited. Even then-U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (now Trump's U.S. secretary of state) observed that interference signing off on that 2020 report, which concluded 'the Russian government inappropriately meddled in our 2016 general election in many ways but then-Candidate Trump was not complicit.' Hopefully, most people aren't taking these claims of treason seriously. They serve only to diminish Trump and Gabbard. Think those criminal referrals Gabbard has sent to the U.S. Department of Justice will result in a successful prosecution? Even Las Vegas will surely refuse wagers on that long shot. Those who still harbor doubts can go peruse those various reports (and their thousands of pages of findings). The rest of us will just have to be content to recognize that the current president and his cronies lie like rugs when it serves their purpose. Peter Jensen is an editorial writer at The Baltimore Sun; he can be reached at pejensen@
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court pauses ruling that weakened 1965 Voting Rights Act
A lower court severely limited who can bring discrimination challenges under the landmark 1965 law. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court paused a lower court's ruling limiting who can sue under the under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, a move backed by civil rights groups and other advocates. Over the objections of three conservative justices, the high court on July 24 put a ruling by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on hold while two Native American tribes appeal it. If allowed to stand, the appeals court's decision would severely undermine enforcement of the law. It said only the U.S. attorney general is authorized to sue under a key section of the law, meaning voters, Native American tribes and groups like the NAACP would be barred from doing so. In this case, the tribes and three voters challenged a state legislative map in North Dakota they said dilutes the voting power of Native Americans. A federal district judge agreed, but the appeals court said vote dilution claims cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by individual voters or groups. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe called that decision a 'knee-cap' to the nation's 'most important civil rights statute.' Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color or other characteristics. In a brief supporting the tribes, the NAACP said the history of that section 'has been written largely through private enforcement.' But North Dakota's attorney general argues Congress did not clearly intend a private enforcement right when the act became law decades ago. The state also said the Supreme Court should keep the appeals court's decision in effect for now to allow the 2026 elections to be conducted under the map challenged by the tribes. That map eliminated two of the three legislative districts in which Native American voters could elect their preferred candidates. Three justices − Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch − said they would have kept the decision in place while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the tribes' appeal. The appeals court's decision affects voting rights litigation in seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Republican attorneys general in most of those states and a few others filed a brief backing the appeals court's decision. More: Supreme Court defers decision on challenge to Louisiana congressional map The Supreme Court is still deciding how to resolve a dispute over Louisiana's congressional districts that involves an interplay between the Voting Rights Act and a racial gerrymandering challenge. Instead of issuing a decision, the court announced in June that it will hear new arguments in its next term.
