3ph

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters . Ed Mahon reported this story while participating in the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism ’s 2024 Data Fellowship. HARRISBURG — This was a crucial year for opioid settlement money in Pennsylvania. For the first time, counties across the state faced serious accountability from a powerful state oversight board. The board scrutinized their decisions on how to spend initial payments from what is expected to total billions of dollars. But even as the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust took on increased oversight, board members conducted much of their work behind closed doors. The secrecy prompted objections from advocates, local government officials, and even one of the board’s own members . As the public was blocked from attending some meetings and silenced at the ones they could witness, Spotlight PA partnered with other news outlets to bring more transparency and accountability to the process. Members of the opioid board tackled a range of issues, including programs that provide clean needles to drug users , fund public defender offices , and support Kensington residents . The decisions they made could shape how settlement money is spent for years to come. Here are five key takeaways from the year in opioid settlement spending, as Pennsylvania responds to an epidemic that continues to kill thousands of people annually. There’s a contradiction between opioid settlement documents and Pennsylvania’s drug laws. The consequences played out in a rural Western Pennsylvania community this year, as a proposed solution stalled in the legislature. At the center of the debate are programs that provide clean syringes and other supplies to drug users. These programs have widespread support in the medical community, and they typically connect people to other services, such as overdose reversal medication, wound care, and substance use treatment. The settlements reached between drug companies and state attorneys general identify expanding these programs as one of the core strategies for the billions of dollars that are coming to states. But in Pennsylvania, these programs are widely considered illegal — or at least in a gray area. Pennsylvania is one of 12 states that do not implicitly or explicitly authorize syringe services programs through statute or regulation, according to an analysis last year . And the state’s definition of illegal drug paraphernalia includes hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects used for injecting banned drugs. That means people who run these programs risk getting arrested in much of the state. Legal concerns over these programs led commissioners in Westmoreland County to pull $150,000 in opioid money from a nonprofit, Spotlight PA and WESA reported earlier this year . Following the newsrooms’ coverage , a state House committee for the first time in at least 10 years approved a bill to authorize these programs across the state . Still, the measure failed to clear the legislature. And these programs faced separate setbacks in Philadelphia, where Mayor Cherelle Parker opposed using public money for them . Allegheny County, where officials took action years ago to allow these programs locally, did use opioid settlement money for syringe services, according to publicly released records. The opioid trust earlier this year approved Allegheny County’s decision to dedicate about $325,000 for those services, despite opposition from one board member. While prosecutor offices around Pennsylvania are eligible to receive millions of dollars from opioid settlements, their counterparts on the other side of the courtroom have been shut out. Guidance from the opioid trust discouraged counties from spending their funds on public defender positions, Spotlight PA reported in April . A lawsuit from the ACLU of Pennsylvania cited this reporting as an example of how indigent defense is often excluded from funding. A report from a national coalition cited Spotlight PA’s reporting and listed the disparity between public defenders and prosecutors as an example of problematic spending . The Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania asked the trust to reconsider and clarify the issue. In May, the chair of the trust, Tom VanKirk, publicly reiterated the opposition to using the money for public defenders. But he suggested that a social worker within a public defender’s office might be allowed. Bucks County later reported dedicating $97,000 in opioid settlement funds for that type of social worker position. Connecting people to services early in their case helps them access services and achieve better outcomes, according to the program description for Bucks County. The trust in November approved that use. District attorney offices can also expect to face more scrutiny in 2025. An amended court order from October clarifies that those offices have to file spending reports with the trust at least once a year. That addresses a disparity in accountability that Spotlight PA and WESA first reported on in 2023 . Trust members have the power to withhold future funding from counties if they decide they spent the money in ways that don’t align with settlement requirements. This past year, the trust rejected a number of programs from counties, including $17,500 for a Lawrence County program involving police cruiser upgrades , $20,000 for a detective initiative in Cameron County, and about $323,000 for a Blair County drug court program. A few counties took the disputes to court. Somerset County appealed the denial of $30,000 for a youth program. Philadelphia is objecting to the denial of millions of dollars aimed at supporting Kensington residents. And most recently, Northampton County filed an appeal over the trust rejecting a portion of a newsletter program . Whatever Commonwealth Court decides, it could have an impact beyond those three counties. Philadelphia , for instance, is asking the court to issue guidance that offers a broad interpretation of spending requirements and is deferential to county decisions. Those cases were pending as of Dec. 18, court records show. Members of the public have been routinely shut out of having a meaningful say in how opioid settlement money should be used, a first-of-its-kind national survey conducted by KFF Health News and Spotlight PA found earlier this year . The people who are shut out include those who have lost loved ones to the opioid crisis or are dealing with it daily. The story highlighted the issue in Philadelphia’s Kensington neighborhood, which has received international attention because of the toll the opioid crisis has had on the community. The trust in June rejected $7.5 million meant to help residents of the area, and one local leader called the action “a retraumatizing moment.” Two state senators who serve on the trust later toured the Kensington area, and the experience in the neighborhood prompted state Sen. Greg Rothman (R., Cumberland) to change his view on the issue, Kensington Voice reported in September . A committee of the trust in October reversed some of the Kensington rejections . Pennsylvania’s trust continues to not allow public comment at its meetings. Advocates have pushed for more involvement here and in other states as well. In Maine, a former member of that state’s opioid council cited one of Spotlight PA and KFF Health News’ findings at a recent public forum. Courtney Gary-Allen, an advocate on substance use issues and who is in long-term recovery, urged that state’s council to allow comment at all regular meetings . “We have to have all of these discussions in a public and transparent way,” she told Spotlight PA in December. Two crucial questions surround the opioid settlements. Where is the money going? And is it being used well? That’s been hard to say in many cases, especially in a place like Pennsylvania where so many decisions happen locally. To answer those questions, Spotlight PA and WESA earlier this year filed open records requests with every county in the state to make spending reports available to the public, advocates , researchers , and other journalists . In November, Spotlight PA published a searchable database that tracks spending decisions by county governments and whether the trust has approved them . Efforts from others have brought greater clarity on spending as well, including in Wyoming , Michigan , California , and nationally. More money is on its way. The opioid trust in November approved distributing about $247 million more in payments to local governments . That’s part of the large share Pennsylvania expects to receive over many years, including up to about $1.8 billion from two waves of agreements with multiple companies, according to a recent court order . KFF Health News’ Aneri Pattani and Henry Larweh contributed to this report. BEFORE YOU GO... If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate . Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.3ph 。

BERLIN (AP) — Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk caused uproar after backing Germany’s far-right party in a major newspaper ahead of key parliamentary elections in the Western European country, leading to the resignation of the paper’s opinion editor in protest. Germany is to vote in an early election on Feb. 23 after Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party governing coalition collapsed last month in a dispute over how to revitalize the country’s stagnant economy. Musk's guest opinion piece for Welt am Sonntag — a sister publication of POLITICO owned by the Axel Springer Group — published in German over the weekend, was the second time this month he supported the Alternative for Germany, or AfD. “The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the last spark of hope for this country," Musk wrote in his translated commentary. He went on to say the far-right party “can lead the country into a future where economic prosperity, cultural integrity and technological innovation are not just wishes, but reality.” The Tesla Motors CEO also wrote that his investment in Germany gave him the right to comment on the country's condition. The AfD is polling strongly, but its candidate for the top job, Alice Weidel , has no realistic chance of becoming chancellor because other parties refuse to work with the far-right party. An ally of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, the technology billionaire challenged in his opinion piece the party's public image. “The portrayal of the AfD as right-wing extremist is clearly false, considering that Alice Weidel, the party’s leader, has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka! Does that sound like Hitler to you? Please!” Musk’s commentary has led to a debate in German media over the boundaries of free speech, with the paper's own opinion editor announcing her resignation, pointedly on Musk's social media platform, X. “I always enjoyed leading the opinion section of WELT and WAMS. Today an article by Elon Musk appeared in Welt am Sonntag. I handed in my resignation yesterday after it went to print," Eva Marie Kogel wrote. The newspaper was also attacked by politicians and other media for offering Musk, an outsider, a platform to express his views, in favor of the AfD. Candidate for chancellor, Friedrich Merz, of the Christian Democratic Union, said Sunday that Musk's comments were “intrusive and presumptuous”. He was speaking to the newspapers of the German Funke Media Group. Co-leader of the Social Democratic Party, Saskia Esken said that “Anyone who tries to influence our election from outside, who supports an anti-democratic, misanthropic party like the AfD, whether the influence is organized by the state from Russia or by the concentrated financial and media power of Elon Musk and his billionaire friends on the Springer board, must expect our tough resistance,” according to the ARD national public TV network. Musk's opinion piece in the Welt am Sonntag was accompanied by a critical article by the future editor-in-chief of the Welt group, Jan Philipp Burgard. “Musk’s diagnosis is correct, but his therapeutic approach, that only the AfD can save Germany, is fatally wrong,” Burgard wrote. Responding to a request for comment from the German Press Agency, dpa, the current editor-in-chief of the Welt group, Ulf Poschardt, and Burgard — who is due to take over on Jan. 1 — said in a joint statement that the discussion over Musk's piece was "very insightful. Democracy and journalism thrive on freedom of expression.” “This will continue to determine the compass of the “world” in the future. We will develop “Die Welt” even more decisively as a forum for such debates,” they wrote to dpa.None

by Rajan Philips A word first used in 17th century England is gaining new currency in 21st century America. Kakistocracy, a Greek derivative per usual, means government administered by the worst group of citizens – in qualification, competence, experience and scruples. Kakistocracy is in full display in the US with the election of Donald Trump as president for a second term. America is returning to chaos not heeding Kamala Harris’s warning against going back. In Sri Lanka, Rajapaksas epitomized Kakistocracy for nearly two decades before it imploded under Gotabaya Rajapaksa. After them came Ranil Wickremesinghe to clean up the economic mess left behind by the Rajapaksas. To his credit, Mr. Wickremesinghe did clean up the economic mess. But he also created a political mess, characteristically and superciliously The mess that Ranil made, heaped atop the mess that has been piling up for all the years of this century finally became insurmountable for the entire political establishment comprising the UNP, the SLFP, and their offshoots, the SJB and the SLPP. They have been sent packing by the people, unsung, unwept and unhonoured. There is an SJB rump but without a winning leader. Sri Lankans have turned the page and opened a new chapter. There is a new president, a new parliament and a new cabinet. There is both the return to old normalcy, as well as the beginning of a new normal. The end cannot be taken for granted, but there could not have been a better start for the making of a new nation. Politics is nothing but constant work in progress. No government can deliver on everything that is possible. The best any government can do is to maximize the good that is possible and minimize the bad that is avoidable. And achieve within its term durable benefits for the people. There is enough reason to be optimistic about the new government while being alert to the risks – that are also aplenty – of its straying off course. There is already an indication of straying in the elephantine omission of any reference to the future of the executive presidency or the enactment of a new constitution in an otherwise well crafted and comprehensive inaugural Policy Statement by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake at the opening sitting of the new parliament on Thursday. I read the English version of the speech issued by the President’s Media Division, and even ran the ‘word find’, looking for words like – constitution, executive, president, referendum – and found none of them, let alone abolition! There is one reference to ‘provincial councils’ but that is also in connection with the role they could play in ‘cleaning Sri Lanka’. There is also no mention if and when local government and provincial council elections will be held. I don’t think these omissions are a result of translation from Sinhala to English. And they will be viewed as grave omissions by NPP critics considering the pillorying that was given to Ranil Wickremesinghe over elections and their postponements. Already there have been criticisms over the government’s walking back on the promise to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act. At least the government issued a statement indicating its position on the PTA matter. But omitting any reference to a new constitution or the executive presidency in the Policy Statement flies in the face of the government’s insistence on being transparent and accountable. NPP’s many critics will justifiably view this omission as a sign that the new government is not going be any different from its predecessors in making and breaking promises to abolish the executive presidency. Unless the government has other plans, and we are not privy to it. Otherwise, this will be a part of the old normal. The omission is also unfortunate in that it diminishes the government’s impressive achievements in setting up its first cabinet and in outlining its policy framework in the President’s well thought out statement to parliament. The new president, parliament, the new cabinet and the President’s Policy Statement are also indicative of the sociology of the JVP’s metamorphosis into NPP and the roots of their political success. A New Beginning It could easily be said that the NPP cabinet is the most compact and competent cabinet of ministers to be assembled in Sri Lanka in the 21st century. Unlike other presidents this century, President AKD has restricted his portfolios to three: Defence, Finance and Planning & Digital Economy. This is more in line with President JRJ’s portfolios that closely resembled the Prime Minister’s portfolios during the parliamentary system of government. This is moving away from the practice of presidents assigning themselves too many portfolios that began with President Kumaratunga. However, in keeping Finance under his wings, the President is continuing the practice that was also started by President Kumaratunga in 1994. Finance deserves to be a single portfolio of a single cabinet minister without any other occupational distractions. That is why Professor Mick Moore, who called Sri Lanka’s economic crisis under Gotabaya Rajapaksa, “a man-made problem”, subsequently advocated that Sri Lanka should get back to the old-style finance minister carrying only the finance portfolio. The identification of portfolios and the selection of individual ministers would appear to be based on considerations of ability, political and/or professional experience, and electoral results. Nine of the cabinet ministers led the vote tallies in their respective electoral districts, and include mostly old JVPers and new NPPers. Seven of the ministers are those who came second or third in their electoral districts. The elected MPs in the cabinet reflect the JVP/NPP’s geographical sweep and its sociopolitical roots in the electoral districts in seven of the island’s nine provinces. Six of the cabinet ministers are drawn from the NPP’s 18 National List MPs, which is a high proportion that indicates the need for balancing electoral representation with cabinet competence. Two of the National List cabinet ministers, Bimal Ratnayake and Ramalingam Chandrasekar have been credited for their political work in the Jaffna District that led to the NPP’s electoral success in the district. Mr. Ratnayake is a seasoned JVP parliamentarian, while Mr. Chandrasekar is a new MP and also the Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic & Oceanic Resources. Chandrasekar with Saroja Paulraj, who was elected from Matara and is the new Minister of Women’s and Children’s Affairs, are both from the Malayaha Tamil community. The two ministers seem to be part of a new turn in cabinet making that privileges not ethnic representation but political participation. That would be consistent with the vision of an equal, inclusive and ‘non-racial’ Sri Lankan society that President Dissanayake eloquently articulated in his Policy Statement. But until that Eldorado is reached the government has to deal with misgivings about missing Muslim and Sri Lankan Tamil representation in the cabinet.Data, AI, and Sri Lanka’s future: What challenges must be overcome for smarter tomorrow?

Reliance and Airtel fighting again, this time with Tata Play joining from Airtel's sideNone

Dominated by No.2 Ohio State for years, surprising No. 5 Indiana has a chance for the big payback

Musk causes uproar for backing Germany's far-right party ahead of key electionsComsats University hiring likely to be postponed again