Piece on a Massachusetts Bill

False Alarms Put Price on Search and Rescue Operations

By Estefania Souza

BOSTON—State Rep., Stephen Kulik’s bill to modify the Massachusetts law regarding search and rescue operation expenses was passed by the Senate in January, but it has been stuck ever since. Kulik, D-Worthington, proposed to change the law (General Laws Chapter 6A Section 18L) so that in the future the government can be reimbursed for certain search and rescue operations.

Bill H00650 would directly affect the government and certain people. If the bill gets passed, two types of persons would be responsible for paying the cost of a search and rescue operation:

First, people who recklessly put themselves in a dangerous situation. “[One] reckless spelunker had to be rescued (for a second time!) at considerable cost to the town in money and personnel,” said Kulik. Cases like that—in which persons practically create the situation from which they have to be rescued—were what prompted him to propose the bill.

The other group affected by the bill includes people giving authorities false information that leads to search and rescue operations. The bill holds people who knowingly provide false alarms liable.

Under the bill, both groups would have to pay the operations. However, according to Kulik, no costs to the taxpayer will come from this bill. “There is no cost other than the nominal work needed to add up the costs expended for a response and sending a bill to the violator,” said Kulik.

However, the bill states that offenders will only be charged for an amount equal to the total cost of the operation—including salaries, equipment and fuel.

According to Kulik, no other bill of the sort has been filed in Massachusetts, but several states in the country have similar laws. For example, New Hampshire has a law that holds citizens, who because of negligent acts require search and rescue operations, accountable for the expenses of the operations.

Bill H00560 is yet to undergo a public hearing during which, according to Kulik, strong opposition may surface. “[But for now] local officials and public safety personnel who know about it are supportive,” said Kulik.

-30-

 Visit this website for more information on how a bill becomes a law.

Piece on a Story Released by Boston Police Department

Crack in Crack Causes Arrest of One

By Estefania Souza

BOSTON—William A. Cobb, Jr. was taken into custody by Boston Police Department yesterday for alleged drug dealing. The 25-year-old Boston resident was charged with drug distribution and selling drugs near a school zone after being caught with cocaine in his buttocks, said the police department.

A plastic bag containing ten individually wrapped packets and eight separate pieces of cocaine was retrieved by a doctor from the suspect’s buttocks, said officials. Cobb was searched under a warrant after refusing to allow a body search despite the plastic bag protruding from his behind, the police department said. Following the body search, police confiscated the drugs, along with more than $500 of what officials believe was drug sales revenue.

Officials first observed Cobb outside a store near Boylston St. The suspect was participating in a drug deal, officials claimed, with two other men. After the incident, Cobb was followed until Tremont Street, where he and his companion were arrested. Both men were taken to the police station suspected of drug dealing. Cobb was further examined and charged for the previous charges. He will be arraigned tomorrow at Boston Municipal Court.

Cobb’s accomplice, whose name was not released by authorities, was given an outstanding warrant.

-30-

Piece on Public Reaction to U.S. Involvement in Libya

Obama's Speech Fails to Reach the People

By Estefania Souza

BOSTON--President Obama attempted to clarify U.S. involvement in Libya in his speech Monday night. But there was on problem with Mr. OBama's address: many people did not watch it.

"I couldn't find the broadcast, said Gerrit Petersen. Petersen claimed to have looked for the president's speech on television, but was unable to find it.

Still, Petersen has a strong opinion regarding the U.S. involvement in Libya. "It's a complicated situation... but he (Obama) could have done better selling it to the people," said Petersen.
"[This time] we didn't have to be the world's cop," said Petersen, who considers himself liberal but Democrat at times. The U.S. is not acting alone, but in cooperation with other nations of the U.N. Security Council. "It's a multi-lateral effort...supporting rather than attacking," said Petersen.

Richard Lehr, a professor and Democrat at Boston University, was also unable to watch the president's speech. "I haven't thought [much] about it (U.S. involvement in Libya). [But] we have to be doing something," said Lehr.

"As commander in chief, [Obama] has to do something," said Allison Wensley, a graduate student and Democrat at Boston University. She also did not watch Obama speak on Monday, but she stands by his decision. "It wasn't our decision... it's the right thing," she said.

On the other hand, Lauren Seesel, a College of Arts and Sciences student and Democrat at Boston University, said that the U.S. should have waited longer to act. "I don't think they have much to do [there]," said Seesel.

-30-

Piece on BU Disaster Reporting Conference

Conference Sheds Light on How Media Should Cover Disasters

By Estefania Souza

BOSTON—A panel made up of a reporter, a coordinator, an editor and a UN senior policy adviser answered questions Thursday afternoon regarding media coverage in countries affected by natural disasters. The panel, Getting the Information out—Immediate Crisis Response, was part of a conference held at Boston University to address how natural disasters are reported.

The underlying issue seemed to be the relationship formed between the media and the disaster-stricken country. “Journalists [place] burdens on a country that has been hit by a disaster,” said Donna Leinwand Leger, a reporter for USA Today.

To answer the question of how reporters should behave in the aftermath of a disaster, she said the media has to be conscious of their presence. “You must be self-sufficient…ought to be mindful,” she said.

The panel explained how it is hard for an affected country to deal with international media. “The media com[es] in… expecting immediate response,” said Nancy Dorsinville, senior policy advisor of U.N. Office of the Special Envoy to Haiti. Journalists, she said, often forget that they are dealing with destroyed countries.

Dorsinville went on to tell the anecdote of one media team in particular, “One French rescue team in particular… said ‘we need someone to go to the local fire station and get us ladders and ropes.’ Fire stations. Plural? Hello!”

The problem, according to Dorsinville, is that the international media forgets about the vulnerability of the affected country. “Everything is already fragile…and the media is coming and saying we want this we want that… everything has to be done right away… [and] that’s a real challenge,” she said.

However, Dorsinville also said that media coverage is necessary in the aftermath of a disaster. “[It’s about] how the media contributes to [the] implications,” she said. According to her, it depends on how the media makes a connection between what happened and what is reported.

The fact is that “25 percent of news in general is about some kind of natural disaster,” Dorsinville said. “There seems to be something in the general public that really is curious… by those kinds of things.” News have to be covered regardless of the gory details, she said.

Manolia Charlotin, editor and business manager of the Boston Haitian Reporter, added to this point. “For journalists… its important for us to respect this institution and this profession,” she said. According to her, the media should continue to report on natural disasters and their consequences. “We (the public) need reporters to keep covering the facts.”

In her opinion, the media plays a very important part. “At the end of the day, without journalists, we don’t have any information to work with,” she said.

-30-

Piece on Obama's 2012 Budget Proposal

Obama’s Budget Under the Republican Knife

By Estefania Souza

BOSTON—President Barack Obama submitted his 2012 budget to Congress on Monday and emphasized the need to cut back on spending in order to support the United States’ economic recovery.

Soon after, House Budget Chair Paul Ryan, R-Wis., expressed his disapproval of the plan. According to the House Budget Committee chairman, Obama’s proposal will not help the country grow.

“It would be better doing nothing than if we would actually pass this budget for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our future and for the sake of our jobs,” said Ryan.

The 2012 budget caused controversy in both political parties, prompting Democrats and Republicans to question Obama’s leadership.

“[The] budget proposal raises a lot of questions about where the priorities of this administration are,” said Senator Jon Tester, D-Mont., in a statement released after the President’s proposal was announced. Like many of his fellow Democrats, Tested expressed concern for Obama’s focus.

The president said his proposals are rooted in the country’s economic growth. Four main points make up the budget: a five-year freeze on discretionary non-military spending, a cessation to the tax-cut for high-earning families, a solution to future unemployment liabilities and a supplement to the health-care reform.

Still, Obama did not only focus of cutting back. He also proposed an ongoing funding of programs he called “investments.” “As we move to rein in our deficits, we must do so in a way that does not cut back on those investments that have the biggest impact on our economic growth because the best antidote to a growing deficit is a growing economy,” he said.

According to Ryan however, the budget is ore expensive than helpful. “This budget does more spending, more taxing, more borrowing…[and] it’s going to cost our country its credibility,” said Ryan. He said the budget is not adequate for the current American situation.

Ryan stated that Obama’s plans would not help the country. “You really cannot borrow and spend and tax your way to prosperity,” he stated.

He called the president’s budget “a punt” and said it did not even take into consideration the advice suggested by the Fiscal Commission.

While Obama stated that “[The United States] must fund those investments that will help America win the race for the job and industries of the future,” Ryan said that what the country borrows today will inevitably have to be paid in the future.

-30-