The biggest incentive the state gives to encourage towns to regionalize is for regional schools. Yet even with the state paying for virtually all the construction costs, the
“go-it-alone” mentality is still so strong in Connecticut that only 45 of the state's 169 towns and cities belong to regional school districts.  The state regionalizes transportation and job training, but it mostly uses federal funds to do so. In some cases, federal law mandates a regional approach; without that requirement, even what little is done regionally here might not occur.

So the state, specifically the governor's office, has a huge role to play in this issue. Gov. Rowland should appoint a blue-ribbon commission on how to encourage regionalism.  The state should pass financial incentives for towns to regionalize more than just education. It is an utter absurdity that a critical service such as water, which is necessary for human life, is not distributed on a regional basis. There could be real savings if the service were regionalized. This is the third-smallest state in the union and yet the state must regulate hundreds and hundreds of different water systems.

Among the other issues that could be regionalized are probate courts and services all towns must conduct, such as tax collection. It's certain there are other functions that could be regionalized.  A detailed examination held at the state level should contain a discussion of ways in which regionalism could reduce the present disparities between cities and towns. This state cannot indefinitely ignore the fact that its poor and minorities remain crowded into a handful of cities and towns while the suburbs remain green, gilded and upper class.

Home rule advocates defend this as part of the culture of Connecticut. But in practice, home rule will do this state great harm in the long run. A greater emphasis on
regionalism in state law, with practical incentives that will allow towns to strengthen what they can do together, would make Connecticut a better state in which to work and live. 

"Home rule! Home rule!” The mantra resonates in Connecticut's small towns whose residents seek, they insist, only the freedom to be left alone, the right to make “our own decisions with our own neighbors.” Fiercely proud of small town traditions and the individual's role in direct democracy, at least 105 of Connecticut's 169 towns still govern through the annual town meeting of voters and elected “selectmen,” itself a term derived from our Colonial roots.

And this culture extends to administrative services that, by any objective measure of efficiency, might be more broadly organized. When national standards suggest Connecticut might “need” fewer than 12 probate courts, Connecticut has 130. Where western states maintain land-recording systems on a county basis, sometimes in counties larger than Connecticut, we still maintain land records in nearly every town clerk's office.

These structures that outsiders might call obsolete provide a human face and scale to Connecticut's governance. We like greeting town officials by name. We expect to debate a zoning variance in our neighborhoods and to fill town hall to oppose a new subdivision on Farmer Smith's old woodlot.

Indeed, if the only issue were one of cost versus efficiency, few would quibble. We readily subsidize the preservation of obsolete historic buildings and are praised for preserving our architectural heritage – why not the same subsidy for “old shoe” government?

Alas, life's not so simple. The question of “who decides” has forever been the source of controversy – and bloodshed – around the world. As long ago as 1624, John Donne famously admonished his countrymen that “no man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent.” And in contemporary life, the effects of land use, resource consumption and tax policy decisions increasingly transcend town boundaries.

Some issues are easy – no one believes each municipality should vote on whether a highway or railroad line might run through their town. Most agree today that a “not in my backyard” attitude shouldn't block important statewide systems; that's why the Connecticut Siting Council sits essentially as a statewide zoning board regarding electric and natural gas transmission lines, power plants and cell phone towers. And, over time, the General Assembly has agreed to override local zoning decisions on group living quarters for people with various disabilities.

But resistance to letting someone else decide persists on other, more controversial issues. We surely need asphalt plants so we may pave our roads, but not in My Town. My Town is prepared to build a mall at the edge of town – next to Your Town. Under our real estate tax system, My Town keeps all the new taxes, while Your Town may receive most of the traffic on its roads.

But most of all, we debate the importance of local schools and where the relatively poor, often a proxy for people of color, should live. In his book “Comeback Cities,” Paul Grogan describes failing urban school systems as the “dreadful push factor,” pushing people out of cities into surrounding suburbs.

Grogan's description is tragically accurate – over 34 years, many of our Hartford neighbors moved a few blocks or a few miles to buy a suburban home in Your Town and, with it, Your Town's public school system. As the 2000 census shows, this push has caused monstrous demographic and economic changes in most of Connecticut's central cities and inner ring suburbs – among other things, making Hartford perhaps the poorest major city in the United States.

We ought not be surprised if Connecticut's suburbs seek to minimize this impact with restrictive housing policies – nor surprised as those who support so-called “smart growth” and social equity howl.

What will the next decades bring as our leaders and courts are forced to decide who should decide? Whatever the outcome, the shape of Home Rule as our grandparents knew it will be forever changed.

Franklin — It began like something out of a horror movie, and it may end as an unsolved mystery.

On Sunday a swarm of bees attacked and pursued Franklin beekeeper Ernest Jennings, 54, who collapsed and died at the doorstep of his home. There were initially suspicions the bees were Africanized “killer” bees, but an analysis completed Thursday ruled that out.

Biologically, the insects were ordinary European honeybees, the kind handled every day without incident by beekeepers. That's what makes the savage attack by this particular hive all the more mysterious, said Louis Magnarelli, the state entomologist.

 “I've been doing this for 26 years, I've been the state entomologist since 1987, and I have never heard of anything like this before,” said Magnarelli, who works at the Office of the State Medical Examiner.

It had been a long shot that the bees were the Africanized variety that has periodically been a problem in the extreme Southwest United States. Experts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture checked the wing length and other physical attributes to determine that they were simply honeybees, said Magnarelli. DNA testing will be performed, but is expected to confirm the findings.

Jennings had been working with his bees around 11:30 a.m. Sunday when they attacked. He had on his protective suit and a “smoker” used to subdue the bees, but the attack was apparently so massive and aggressive that Jennings was overwhelmed.  He tried to escape in his pickup truck to his home a quarter-mile away, but the bees followed. His wife, who has allergic reactions to bee stings, attempted unsuccessfully to use a garden hose and insecticides to disperse the swarm.

When police and firefighters arrived, they found the bees still swarming around Jennings and the truck. They used a fire hose to disperse the insects.

A spokesman at the Office of the Chief State Medical Examiner said Thursday that an autopsy was inconclusive. It is not clear whether Jennings died from the venom or another medical condition aggravated by the attack. Toxicology tests will take several weeks. The office did not release information on how many times the victim was stung.

Adam Fuller of Chaplain, president of the Connecticut Beekeepers Association, said he was giving a presentation on beekeeping Sunday when a State Police cruiser arrived and he was told his expertise was needed. He arrived at the Jennings' home around 3 p.m.

“The first thing, as we parked and got out, they came right at us,” he said of the bees.

That night, when the bees finally became inactive, Fuller removed the hive box and two others to a “remote location,” which he declined to identify.

His attempts Monday and Tuesday to more closely examine and photograph the hive was met with an aggressive response by the bees, which at one point pursued him 150 yards into the woods.

“This is probably the most aggressive behavior I have ever seen among honeybees,” said Fuller, who quickly gave up his hopes of trying to capture the queen for his collection.

On Wednesday, Fuller, acting in consultation with Magnarelli, destroyed the hive, first fumigating the bees, then filling the hive with water. The combs containing the larvae were burned.  There were 40,000 to 50,000 bees in the hive, he estimated.  The other two hives taken from the Jennings property showed no such aggression, and Fuller said he has kept one and given the other to an associate

Fuller said a neighbor of Jennings reported seeing wild bees take control of the hive. The egg-laying pattern of the queen, determined by looking at the combs, indicated it was an older queen that had relocated to the hive.  But the fact they may have been wild bees does not alone explain their aggressive behavior, Fuller said. Often beekeepers welcome wild bees using a hive box and they typically do so without a problem, he said.

 “They're free bees,” Fuller said.

Magnarelli said he sees no reason for the public to be concerned. The attack appears to have been an isolated incident involving unusually aggressive honeybees that have since been destroyed.  There are 508 registered beekeepers in the state, with about 2,400 hives, who work each day without incident, Magnarelli noted. Their work is critical in assuring orchards and vegetable plants are pollinated.

“It was an awful, awful thing,” said Fuller. “All I could think of was that poor man and that poor woman having to watch that.”