Connecticut lawmakers are again considering a two‑cent‑per‑ounce tax on sugary drinks that would be used to pay for universal free school meals across the state.

Under the plan, a two‑cent‑per‑ounce tax would raise the cost of a 2‑liter bottle of soda from $1.99 to $3.35.

The tax would generate funding to reimburse public school districts that provide free breakfast and lunch to all students.

“School meals are an important part of the day for the young people, that level of nutrition, and we believe that all students should have it,” Sen. Gary Winfield said. “And a way of supporting it was thinking about the sugary drinks that we have.”

The American Heart Association, which supports the proposal, commissioned polling of Connecticut residents and found that 79% of respondents favor the tax. (Read the commissioned research by the STATS group here.)

“Rarely do you see this level of agreement or support for a particular proposal,” said Kenneth Dautrich, an associate professor emeritus at UConn.

Universal school lunches are already available in Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, and New York, according to testimony submitted by Dr. Tatiana Andreyeva, Associate Professor at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut.

Scott Dolch, president and CEO of the Connecticut Restaurant & Hospitality Association, said the increased cost could impact businesses.

The tax would be paid at the distributor level when it is sold to retailers. Dolch believes it would be passed along to the consumer.

“They can’t eat that,” Dolch said. “Restaurants survive off of, on average, a 3% profit margin.

As written, the tax would also cover certain alcoholic drinks, including cocktails, mojitos, and espresso martinis. Beer and wine industry advocates told the committee Monday that decreased alcohol demand has already put pressure on their businesses.

Last month, Gov. Ned Lamont announced his proposed budget includes funding for universal free breakfast. It would also make lunch free for students who qualify for reduced‑price meals.

Rep. Joe Polletta said Republicans oppose creating another tax to support a universal lunch program.

“Folks on my side of the aisle do not agree with creating yet another tax in Connecticut to pay for something,” Polletta said. “We should find the money in the budget if we think it’s a good plan and a laudable goal.”

A similar measure was proposed last year but did not advance out of committee.

Winfield said he hopes he and other supporters can communicate more clearly this year to answer concerns raised previously.

“Clearly, we want to get to some of the folks who had opposition within the building, and then we’ll see what we get out of it,” Winfield said.

By Marie Weidmayer, Bangor Daily News Staff

A former Maine prison official pleaded guilty to theft and accepting a bribe after he spent nearly $2.4 million in stolen money.

By Marie Weidmayer, Bangor Daily News Staff

A former Maine prison official pleaded guilty to theft and accepting a bribe after he spent nearly $2.4 million in stolen money.

Gerald Merrill, 64, of Abbot pleaded guilty Monday to theft by unauthorized taking and bribery of official and political matters in Penobscot County Superior Court. 

A jury trial was scheduled to start March 19 before Merrill pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. The agreement is for 10 years in prison with all but five years suspended, plus three years of probation, Assistant Attorney General Charlie Boyle said.

Merrill was the deputy superintendent and business manager at the Mountain View Correctional Facility in Charleston and the Downeast Correctional Facility in Machiasport at the time of the thefts. Melanie High was also charged with theft by unauthorized taking and bribery of official and political matters. She pleaded guilty to the charges on Nov. 3, 2025.

From March 2014 to July 23, 2023, Merrill allegedly used state-issued credit cards to make payments to five companies controlled by High. He then received kickbacks and other payments to his personal accounts.

Merrill bought nearly $2.4 million in maintenance supplies from five vendors and most supplies were not delivered, Boyle said. The vendors were connected to High or people who knew her, he said.

He made at least 529 credit card transactions and did it without following the normal process for ordering supplies for the prisons, Boyle said. High and Merrill had a code that “special orders” signaled that none of the ordered supplies would be delivered, he said.

High paid Merrill more than $500,000 through PayPal and Zelle for his role, Boyle said.

The bulk of the evidence was expected to be testimony from High, according to a trial brief previously filed by Merrill’s attorney, Walt McKee. She agreed to cooperate as part of a “highly favorable deal” with the state, the filing said.

Merrill solicited and accepted money from High and the five companies, while knowing the payments were intended to influence his actions as a public servant, a grand jury indictment said.

The amount of restitution will be decided at Merrill’s sentencing. Merrill will not give up his state pension as part of this plea, Boyle said. That will help ensure the likely six-figure restitution will be paid.

Merrill is scheduled for sentencing at 3 p.m. on May 12.

Massachusetts lawmakers are once again weighing whether to stop the twice-a-year clock change — and most Boston.com readers who responded to our informal poll say it’s time to end the practice.

Earlier this month, Senate President Karen E. Spilka announced her support for legislation filed by State Sen. John F. Keenan that would eliminate the biannual switch between standard time and daylight saving time. 

The bill (S.2157) proposes moving the state to a permanent Atlantic standard time system instead, but only if two or more New England states adopt the same time system.

Supporters of the proposal say the clock change disrupts daily routines and sleep schedules, while research has linked the shift to short-term spikes in heart attacks, strokes, and other health issues. The bill is currently being reviewed in the state Senate after being moved to the chamber’s rules committee.

We asked readers whether Massachusetts should stop changing its clocks. More than 470 readers responded, with a majority (83%) voting “yes” and just 17% voting “no.” Though most were in favor of ending the practice, many readers differed on which time system the state should adopt permanently.

Several readers said the clock change itself — rather than the specific time zone — is the real problem.

“It’s a relic of a bygone era that does more harm than good. We mustn’t be afraid to move on just because it’s always been that way,” Brian R. from Norwell said.

Others like Lana C. from Dorchester described the adjustment as disruptive to sleep and daily routines.

“Twice a year my sleep/wake cycle is disrupted for no apparent good reason,” she said. 

Some readers said their preference is simply to keep the later daylight hours that come with Daylight Saving Time.

“I love daylight after work. From early March through October I think we’re in the right time zone (and in June the sun gets me up so early I can’t imagine being on Eastern standard time). Winters are dark and winter mornings are not great for getting to work and school in the dark, but school schedules can be tweaked, can’t they? And it wouldn’t be changing the clocks, which is terrible for people,” argued Tom D. from Malden.

But readers who opposed ending the clock change said the proposal could create new problems — particularly darker winter mornings.

“It would be way too dark for the school buses in the winter if the clocks were on Atlantic time (effectively Daylight Savings time schedule in the winter). Safety for the kids is key,” K.G. from Billerica said.

Others raised concerns about coordination with neighboring states and the rest of the region.

“It would make no sense for Massachusetts to change to Atlantic Standard Time (i.e., Eastern Daylight Time year-round) unless the other New England states — at least, those north and east of us, New Hampshire and Maine — did as well,” said Ken P. of Lexington.

Still, for many readers who responded, the inconvenience of changing clocks twice a year outweighed those concerns.

Below is a selection of reader responses from both sides of the debate. 

Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.

Should Massachusetts stop changing its clocks?

Yes

“This is a no-brainer. No one likes changing the clock twice a year, and very few enjoy sunsets before 4:15pm. According to the legislation, the change would only take effect once two other neighboring states agree to make the switch as well. While that’s comforting, I’m not sure it’s even unnecessary. If Massachusetts were to make the switch today, we would be only the first domino. Every other New England state would follow in short order.” — Greg D., Arlington

“Changing clocks twice a year doesn’t make sense anymore. Save us the frustration and health risks!” — Carolyn, Brockton

“It’s disruptive every time we change the clocks. People miss appointments, interactions with people in places where the time either doesn’t change or changes at a different time get confused, and there are documented health and accident effects. I prefer the later daylight that we get with Daylight Saving Time, so I would prefer permanent Daylight Saving Time.” — Mabel L., Cambridge

“I hate the early darkness in November, December, and January when the sun sets before 5 p.m. The sun starts descending at 2 p.m. which is just depressing. Moving to the Atlantic time zone would help make the winter less bleak. It is a logical solution. If you look at a map, all of New England should actually be in the Atlantic time zone. People’s worries about kids going to school in the dark could be alleviated by having school start an hour later, something educators have been advocating for years.” — David C., Falmouth

“Although I would not enjoy the extra dark mornings in the winter, I feel this would be healthier for everyone.” — Nancy O. Marblehead

“I dread the time changes both in the spring and fall because the disruption of my circadian rhythm makes for a miserable two weeks of adjustment.” — Frank D., Hudson

“The twice a year time change is extremely disruptive, both for personal schedules and business schedules when working with other countries (as is very common for the tech industry that I am in). It would be better if we picked one time zone and stuck with it. While I prefer DLST for more light in the afternoon in the winter, I would not argue if we settled on Standard time year-round.” — Wayne, Tewksbury

“A change to Standard Time would be a benefit to all. While Daylight Savings may have had a benefit for a period of time, the change is taxing and unnecessary given the advancements in outdoor lighting since it was first introduced. Additionally, even at Standard Time it will be light at night throughout the summer giving ample time for fun outdoor activity in the evening hours. All in all, it would streamline yearly activities and be a benefit to all – and worth a move to the state!” — Peter, Exeter, New Hampshire

“Daylight at the end of the day is far more valuable than daylight at the start. The winter days are too short of daylight so adding an hour at the end in exchange for an hour at the beginning would be much better.” — Rob M., Westford

“Changing the clocks only disrupts our circadian rhythms and daily life, it also has a negative effect on our health.  It causes sleeplessness, can be strenuous to our bodies with our blood pressure, heart health, and our alertness and focus. I prefer standard time as a permanent solution.” — Andrea, Plymouth

“I would prefer to keep the current time where it is sunnier in the afternoon. Yes it is hard to get up in the dark, but longer afternoons and evenings mean kids are outside playing more and there is more time for family activities after work.” — Lynn H., Holliston

No

“School Districts who have their elementary students start their day before middle and high school students will be at risk — putting children as young as 5 years old at a bus stop before sunrise (darkness) for 4 months (November through February).” — Rick G., Dover

“I value the extra daylight hours in summer, and I don’t see how changing the clock one hour twice a year is a big deal when people willingly expose themselves to jet lag and stay up late for various reasons, both of which have a more significant impact on sleep.” — John H., Upton

“Everyone who works in finance/tied to the financial markets in New York would suffer by being ahead an hour.” — Matt, Milford

“I remember the year back in the 1970s during the energy crisis when we stayed on Daylight Savings Time all year. Kids were waiting in the dark for their school buses in the morning, as it didn’t start to get light out until after 7:30 am in the dead of winter. Yes, the extra light at the end of the day was nice, but it was awful in the mornings, especially for the kids.” —Betty, Waltham

“If it were to keep Daylight Savings Time then yes, but to switch us to Atlantic Standard Time would put us 4 hours ahead of the rest of the country and out of sync with the rest of the region and nation. Much more disruptive!” — John, Shrewsbury

Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.

Annie Jonas is a Community writer at Boston.com. She was previously a local editor at Patch and a freelancer at the Financial Times.