Several changes in leadership in Stillwater Area Public Schools began on Thursday and will remain in effect for the remainder of the school year.

Brett Stringer, who has served as interim principal at Brookview Elementary School this winter, assumes the permanent role of principal. He brings more than a decade of experience as a school leader and has built a strong connection with the Brookview community, district officials said.

Malinda Major, who previously served as principal of Brookview, is serving as a principal on special assignment at Stillwater Middle School, with assigned duties as assistant principal.

Kristin Rolling, who has served as the assistant principal at Stillwater Middle School, is now assistant principal of Brookview and Lake Elmo elementary schools. Rolling began her career in Stillwater Schools as a school psychologist at the elementary level, district officials said.

The moves are part of a strategy to “place each administrator in a position where their skills can be most effective,” Superintendent Mike Funk said.

Related Articles

Woodbury attorney disbarred after being convicted of swindling client

Charges: Woodbury HS student had replica gun in backpack, ran from school

Forest Lake ‘career offender’ gets 12½-year prison term for swindling businesses, homeowners

Report of student with gun at Woodbury HS leads to search, apprehension

‘Like having a bunch of nice friends’: Volunteer phone line for positive messages marks 30th year

By DEVNA BOSE

A federal judge will temporarily block President Donald Trump’s administration from cutting billions in federal dollars that support COVID-19 initiatives and public health projects throughout the country.

Related Articles

Senate confirms Mehmet Oz to take lead of Medicare and Medicaid agency

Judge says US government may have ‘acted in bad faith’ as he weighs contempt over deportation order

Pentagon watchdog to review Hegseth’s use of Signal app to convey plans for Houthi strike

Trump’s tariffs aren’t strictly reciprocal. Here’s how he calculated them

These are the places affected by Trump’s tariffs

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, appointed by Trump in 2019 but first nominated by former President Barack Obama, in Rhode Island said Thursday that she plans to grant the court order sought by 23 states and the District of Columbia.

“They make a case, a strong case, for the fact that they will succeed on the merits, so I’m going to grant the temporary restraining order,” said McElroy, who plans to issue a written ruling later.

New York Attorney General Letitia James tweeted about the judge’s decision immediately after the hearing, saying: “We’re going to continue our lawsuit and fight to ensure states can provide the medical services Americans need.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Kane objected to the temporary restraining order in court but she said she was limited in the argument she could make against it, adding that her office was unable to thoroughly review the thousands of documents under the time limitation.

The states’ lawsuit, filed Tuesday, sought to immediately stop the $11 billion in cuts. The money was allocated by Congress during the pandemic and mostly used for COVID-related initiatives, as well as for mental health and substance use efforts. The lawsuit said losing the money would devastate U.S. public health infrastructure, putting states “at greater risk for future pandemics and the spread of otherwise preventable disease and cutting off vital public health services.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has defended the decision, saying that the money was being wasted since the pandemic is over.

State and local public health departments already have laid off people, including nearly 200 employees at the Minnesota Department of Health. North Carolina says it stands to lose about $230 million, and California officials put their potential losses at $1 billion.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who is also part of the lawsuit, said half a billion dollars in public health grants that support long-term care for the elderly and immunizations for children were at stake in his state.

“As a result of taking the Administration to court, these dollars will now start flowing again,” he wrote on X.

The temporary block on chopping health funding is the latest legal setback for the Trump administration, which is facing some 150 lawsuits on issues ranging from immigration to deep financial and job cuts at federal agencies to transgender rights. Federal judges have issued dozens of orders slowing — at least for now — the president’s ambitious conservative agenda.

AP reporter Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed to this report.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

“When polls only ask people how they feel about ‘tough-on-crime’ solutions, they receive only validation for those very solutions.”

A rally last year in support of the city’s mental health clubhouses. (Gerardo Romo/NYC Council Media Unit)

As budget negotiations continue in Albany and the mayoral primary heats up in New York City, more and more polls are coming out focused on ways to improve safety on our streets and subways. Accurate polling, particularly when it comes to safety, requires actually giving respondents a choice.

When polls only ask people how they feel about “tough-on-crime” solutions, they receive only validation for those very solutions. When presented with a choice, however, people prefer comprehensive, community-based solutions over ones focused on police, incarceration, and punishment.

Recent polls have asked New Yorkers in broad terms about complex issues like involuntary hospitalization or surging police presence on the subway. Although the headlines sound compelling, these polls failed to offer alternative solutions. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the findings support those punitive approaches to safety.

The polling, while flawed, reflects an unfortunate truth: many New Yorkers only hear from their leaders about “tough-on-crime” policies. However, the evidence shows that community-based programs and services work at making the city safer. New York City’s crisis respite centers, clubhouses, and stabilization centers keep people safe in their communities, saving money and avoiding psychiatric admissions.

The city’s Crisis Management System has contributed to a 40 percent reduction in shootings in the neighborhoods with community-based programming that addresses essential needs like education, healthcare, and employment. Bail reform initially reduced the city’s jail population by 31 percent and led to less recidivism overall. And supportive housing has been proven to reduce incarceration, homeless shelter stays, and emergency hospitalizations.

Ask a New Yorker how the city invests in safety, and you’ll likely hear only about police and corrections. But when you ask what makes them feel safe, the answer is more nuanced: according to Vera Action’s December 2024 poll of likely New York City voters, gun control (36 percent) and affordable housing (28 percent) topped the list, ahead of more police (26 percent) and strict criminal laws (18 percent).

Eighty-four percent of respondents were in favor of expanding supportive housing, mental health treatment, and drug treatment so New Yorkers can await trial in their homes instead of on Rikers, and 60 percent supported “more healthcare clinics and mobile crisis response teams so that people with mental illness don’t wait months, or even years, to get help.”

New Yorkers are hungry for policy solutions; present them anything with the promise of improving safety, and they are likely to support it. But when faced with a choice between doubling down on punishment or investing in community-based, evidence-backed solutions, New Yorkers choose policies rooted in what actually works.

According to Vera Action’s December poll, 58 percent of New Yorkers prefer a comprehensive approach to safety—funding “good schools, jobs, and affordable housing”—over increasing our reliance on harsh sentences, strong bail laws, incarceration, and policing.

On policing, the idea that we must either expand the NYPD or dismantle it is a false choice—and one that New Yorkers see through. When asked for their thoughts on law enforcement, 38 percent of respondents said they wanted to support the police while holding them accountable if they use excessive force or abuse their power.

More funding for police lagged behind by 28 percentage points. And 59 percent of respondents agreed that “police should focus on investigating and solving serious crimes and send trained experts to help New Yorkers who are homeless or in crisis,” compared to 33 percent who supported even limited use of stop-and-frisk.

Ultimately, New Yorkers want better policing, not more of it, and they support sending the right first responder to the right crisis. In many cases, armed police are not well-suited to address people’s underlying needs or de-escalate tense situations. Social workers, healthcare clinicians, substance use counselors, peer specialists, and other trained experts can better support people in ways that break cycles of instability and crime, making us all safer.

Rather than jumping straight to involuntary hospitalization, more police, and putting more people in jail, we need our leaders to look at the evidence and invest in solutions that address root causes and prevent future crime. Not only is it good policy—it’s also overwhelmingly popular with New Yorkers, provided they’re given the option.

Alana Sivin is the director of the Vera Institute of Justice’s Greater Justice New York initiative, leading efforts to advance criminal legal reform across the Empire State.

The post Opinion: New Yorkers Support Community-Based Safety Solutions. You Just Have to Ask. appeared first on City Limits.

NEW YORK — All season the Minnesota Wild’s penalty killers have been a topic of conversation, and until recently, for all the wrong reasons. For much of the winter, the surest way to see a Wild opponent score was to wait until a player in green and red went to the penalty box.

After that, it generally wouldn’t take long.

While the NHL’s league-wide statistics still show the Wild owning the worst penalty kill in the Western Conference, the unit has been notably effective recently. On Wednesday in Manhattan, with the game tied 4-4 in the third period, the Wild killed off a trio of Rangers power plays and earned the point that comes with overtime.

In the past dozen games, the Wild have killed 24 of the opponents’ 28 man advantage situations after going 4 for 4 versus the Rangers (83.3 percent).

Marco Rossi, who scored the tying goal for Minnesota early in the third period of a back-and-forth game, was already looking beyond the regular season when talking about the penalty kill and what it means.

“That was huge,” he said. “I know at that time of year, even in the playoffs, the special teams have to be really good if you want to win. So, they did a really good job.”

Part of the difference has been a simple solution that coach John Hynes stressed when the penalty kill was struggling. You don’t need to kill penalties if you don’t take penalties. And in eight of the last 12 games, the Wild have been whistled two times or fewer.

As the penalties started piling up at Madison Square Garden, Hynes said the key for his team was keeping their cool and getting the job done.

“You do feel those emotions, but I think it’s important that you’ve got to stay on task,” Hynes said following the Rangers’ 5-4 overtime win. “It’s about if you can stay focused and have the team stay focused. We had to kill the penalties, right? We couldn’t do anything about the situation we were in, and why we were in them. It was more making sure we were focused on what we needed to do to get out of it.”

On Wednesday, the Wild penalty killers also took advantage of a Rangers turnover to score Minnesota’s first shorthanded goal of the season, and they nearly had a second one when Matt Boldy was thwarted on a shorthanded breakaway.

For the Wild, figuring out the best path to penalty kill success, with the playoffs looming, may be some perfect timing.

Zeev Buium a Hobey finalist

The first goal in Minnesota Wild regular season history was scored by Marian Gaborik on October 6, 2000. But the first goal ever scored by a Wild player in a preseason game came a few days earlier off the stick of Scott Pellerin, who in 1992 won the Hobey Baker Award given annually to college hockey’s top player while skating for Maine.

Brian Bonin, who played a handful of games for the Wild in his career, also won the Hobey as a senior for the Gophers in 1996. Now, the Wild have at least a 33 percent chance of grabbing another Hobey winner as Denver defenseman Zeev Buium was announced on Thursday as one of the three Hobey Hat Trick finalists.

As a sophomore for the defending national champions, Buium — the Wild’s first round pick in the 2024 NHL Draft — was named the top player in his conference and the most outstanding player at last weekend Manchester Regional as the Pioneers earned a return trip to the Frozen Four.

That’s where Buium will be on Friday, April 11, when the 2025 Hobey Baker winner is named. Boston College forward Ryan Leonard and Michigan State forward Isaac Howard, who is from Hudson, Wis., are the other two finalists. Leonard signed a contract with the NHL’s Washington Capitals a short time after BC’s season ended.

Among the hockey history on display at Xcel Energy Center is a showcase of past Hobey winners, and the jersey from the most recent recipient: Boston University forward Macklin Celebrini, now a frontrunner for the Calder Trophy skating for the NHL’s San Jose Sharks.

Related Articles

Not pointless, as Wild fall in OT to Rangers

Busy schedule suits the Wild just fine at this time of the season

No pouting allowed, as getting to three goals is elusive for Wild lately

Matt Boldy’s late goal salvages a point for Wild in New Jersey

Newark is where it all began for Wild coach John Hynes