Walters: Sacramento Democrats:  Demand You Buy From China—But Get Stoned, to Forget About it.

This is the priority of the Sacramento Democrats:  tax breaks for pot smokers and force you to buy an EV—that has a battery that consist of lithium from China—ONLY.  Who says Newsom and Democrat don’t protect China.

“Most lithium is imported from other countries, including China. The Salton Sea, however, is a potentially huge source of the mineral that, if developed, would both contribute to energy independence and create many new jobs in an economically depressed corner of the state.

Lithium companies have warned that taxing extraction, $400 to $800 per metric ton, would make California lithium more expensive than imports and discourage investment in the industry, but were ignored.

Another trailer bill, however, would give sellers of legal marijuana a hefty cut in taxes, responding to their complaints that taxation makes their product too expensive vis-à-vis pot from illegal growers and sellers.”

How taxes are decided in California

BY DAN WALTERS, Calmatters,   6/29/22   

IN SUMMARY

Two pending California budget-related bills, one to tax lithium extraction and another to reduce taxes on marijuana, demonstrate the arbitrary nature of tax policy

Let’s start with the premise that taxation is largely arbitrary.

Despite efforts to frame tax policy in moral or at least philosophical terms, what or who is taxed and the form and level of that taxation merely reflect current political priorities.

Take, for example, South Lake Tahoe, a small city that sits on California’s border with Nevada. If you live in that city, you pay the nation’s highest state income taxes. However, if your home is located a few feet to the east, inside Douglas County, Nevada, you pay no state income taxes.

That explains why there’s a steady rivulet of high-income Californians resettling in Nevada, or at least changing their official addresses. If a couple of pending California ballot measures are approved in November, state taxes on the wealthy will increase even more and Nevada will become an even more popular tax refuge.

California’s income taxes became the nation’s highest through a series of incremental decisions made by legislators or voters and they now provide more than two-thirds of the state’s general fund revenue. Nevada, on the other hand, makes do without taxing incomes.

So which state is correct? Neither. They just happened to take different taxation paths for different reasons.

The arbitrary nature of taxation is evident, too, within the California revenue system, particularly in sales taxes.

One oddity is that cold food is not subject to taxation but hot food is and the differential can be very difficult to sort out. Some years ago, a movie theater chain asked the state Board of Equalization to shift popcorn from being a taxable hot food to a tax-free cold food. The rationale was that by the time theater patrons returned to their seats with popcorn in hand, it had turned cold. The board agreed.

If someone buys computer software, such as Turbo Tax, to file federal and state income tax returns, that purchase is subject to a sales tax. But if a large company obtains a custom computer program to prepare its tax returns, the purchase is free of sales taxes. Why? Because those who sell custom software lobbied the Legislature for an exemption in the 1980s.

The Legislature, at the behest of Gov. Gavin Newsom, is on the verge of enacting a new and especially questionable tax anomaly.

One budget trailer bill would impose a hefty new tax on the embryonic industry of extracting lithium from the brine of the Salton Sea in the Southern California desert.

Lithium is the key ingredient of long-life, rechargeable batteries used in everything from cellphones to electric cars and immense electrical energy storage banks and therefore plays a key role in the state’s drive to make itself carbon-free.

Most lithium is imported from other countries, including China. The Salton Sea, however, is a potentially huge source of the mineral that, if developed, would both contribute to energy independence and create many new jobs in an economically depressed corner of the state.

Lithium companies have warned that taxing extraction, $400 to $800 per metric ton, would make California lithium more expensive than imports and discourage investment in the industry, but were ignored.

Another trailer bill, however, would give sellers of legal marijuana a hefty cut in taxes, responding to their complaints that taxation makes their product too expensive vis-à-vis pot from illegal growers and sellers.

So California politicians may be strangling an industry vital to their vision of a carbon-free future while encouraging — in essence, subsidizing — an industry that helps people get stoned.

That’s about as arbitrary as it can get

Willie Brown:  Chesa Boudin Should Run Again for San Fran DA—He Will win

I seldom agree with Willie Brown—certainly his choice in gold digging women, like Kamala harris is an example of poor judgement.  But he is right, if the just Recalled Chesa Boudin runs again, he could be re-elected.  That is because San Fran voters are not really upset with crime—they just do not want to be victims of it.  By the time of the next election many thousands more of the middle class and the very rich will have left town permanently.  Dozens more major companies  will have also lost.

All that means is that the donors to a campaign against crime and Boudin will no longer care—they are safe in other States.  This is a collapsing town with or without Boudin in office, the police have been neutralized, too few cops to keep even one area of the city safe.

So let Boudin run again, this town deserves him.

Willie Brown Thinks DA Chesa Boudin Should Run Again. And Says He’d Win

Written by Josh Koehn, San Fran Standard,  6/28/22 

San Francisco’s political oddsmakers began taking figurative bets Tuesday on who would become the city’s next district attorney as the Board of Supervisors certified the recent election results and the clock started on Mayor London Breed’s window to appoint a successor to Chesa Boudin.

More than $7 million was spent to recall Boudin from office in the June 7 recall election, and much of that money came from the region’s wealthy investor class. The final vote tally showed 55% of voters supporting Boudin’s removal, which was closer than some expected. Mayor Breed must now wait at least 10 days from Tuesday to officially make an appointment, a window of time required by the City Charter.

But at least one of the mayor’s advisors and predecessors in office thinks Boudin—who told the Chronicle he might run again in November or next year—would have an excellent chance to win his job back.

“I think Chesa runs in November,” former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown told The Standard. “Of course, why wouldn’t he? … He got 45% of the (recall) vote. I would run if I’m Chesa. I know that was not a true measurement of my electability in this recall. ‘I was literally running against myself.’ Nobody else on the ballot, period.”

It’s unclear who Breed will appoint, but sources told The Standard earlier this month that she started taking meetings about a potential appointment weeks before the election. Sean Elsbernd, the mayor’s chief of staff, has met with every potential candidate, a list that includes Supervisor Catherine Stefani and Alameda County prosecutor Nancy Tung. Several other judges and attorneys in the city also have been floated as candidates.

Brown said he is “adamantly opposed” to recall elections, but he stayed out of the effort to oust Boudin because “people had some legitimate reasons,” which included the DA’s handling hate crime cases involving Asian Americans. Attacks and incidents of discimrination against the city’s AAPI community have skyrocketed during the pandemic.

The anxiety and anger that built up during the pandemic eventually led to Proposition H, a ballot measure to recall Boudin that was in many ways funded by the Bay Area’s investor class.

“Any time you’re on the ballot by yourself, I guarantee you, you’re not going to win,” Brown said.

Despite a relatively sizable coalition of people who came together to recall Boudin, Brown suggested the reformer could have an opportunity to reclaim the job if he runs again in the fall.

“Chesa is better known than anyone (Breed) could appoint,” Brown said. “Chesa is better informed on criminal justice matters than anyone she could appoint. He has already incurred the wrath, in particular, of the Asian community.”

A major reason for the former mayor’s confidence in Boudin’s re-electability, however, comes down to the city’s ranked-choice voting system. Boudin took office in early 2020 after receiving just 36% of the vote, and his profile in the city—for better or worse—has grown substantially larger since his first campaign in 2019.

Brown said voters “absolutely” got it right on the recall, but with “this stupid ranked-choice concept that we have in this town, you’re always going to get some oddball winning.”

He pointed to Malia Cohen’s ranked-choice victory for supervisor in 2010 as a prime example of not having a mandate. Cohen had less than 15% of the votes going into the 14th round of results in a crowded contest.

The pressure will now fall on Breed to make sure she gets the appointment right, especially with an agitated base of voters who have now recalled Boudin in June and three school board members in February.

“They have knocked off the school board, they have knocked off the DA’s office, there is now only one major (office) left,” Brown said. “And they won’t go after (Breed) now, on a recall, but in 18 months she’s on the ballot for re-election. So, we’ve really got our work cut out for us.”

San Fran:  Young People Leave and COVID Goes Down

This article misses the real point.  It appears that when young people leave town, COVID goes down.  But in the long run this makes for a healthy town.  How?  Because when you give young people, especially men, the vaccine, they will get heart disease and numerous other long term ailments.  Since so many professionals, including doctors are leaving San Fran, this eases the health care needs of the community.

If you want to know why the student population is going to have a massive decline in San Fran, here is the reason—between abortions and the child bearing age population leaving town, no need for parks (except for the elderly, and schools can be converted into affordable housing for the druggies and illegal aliens still in town.

“Indeed, San Francisco County experienced the second-largest decline in population during the pandemic compared to any other county in the U.S. And newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows people like Sorenson are those who drove that dramatic population decline: young, working-age adults.

Out of the 58,000 people who left the city between 2020 and 2021, more than two-thirds were aged 20 to 34. Before the pandemic, these young adults accounted for 28% of SF’s population but their portion dropped to 25% between April 2020 and July 2021.

A more granular examination of the data shows that very few older people left the city during the first year of the pandemic.” 

Exodus of Young Adults Caused San Francisco’s Covid Population Drop

Written by Jiyun Tsai, SF Standard, 6/29/2 

Amy Sorenson, 36, lived in San Francisco for five years before she and her partner decided to move to Houston, Texas in 2021. The switch to remote work—and the allure of saving enough money to one day purchase a home—made the decision easy, said Sorenson.

“One of the things that did prompt the move was that while living in San Francisco there was no chance of us saving enough money to buy a house,” Sorenson said. “Our property that we rent in Texas is three times the size as the one in San Francisco and half the rent.”

Indeed, San Francisco County experienced the second-largest decline in population during the pandemic compared to any other county in the U.S. And newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows people like Sorenson are those who drove that dramatic population decline: young, working-age adults.

Out of the 58,000 people who left the city between 2020 and 2021, more than two-thirds were aged 20 to 34. Before the pandemic, these young adults accounted for 28% of SF’s population but their portion dropped to 25% between April 2020 and July 2021.

A more granular examination of the data shows that very few older people left the city during the first year of the pandemic. 

While the new Census data shows the race/ethnic profile of SF residents overall didn’t change appreciably between April 2020 and July 2021, the young working-age adults who left were more likely to be white.

While whites accounted for 55% of the pre-pandemic 20-34 age group, they accounted for 68% of those who left San Francisco during the first year of the pandemic.

Why did young adults leave San Francisco? For the same reasons that Amy Sorenson describes: A high cost of living, a tight real estate market, and the freedom that working from home provides. 

But there’s anecdotal data that the young folks are trickling back.

Fractured: San Francisco’s Chinese Political Leaders Struggle To Unify

Sorenson said Houston isn’t their forever home—for one thing, it’s very hot, and for another, they miss sidewalks and being able to walk around easily. The duo is considering Denver, New York City, and Los Angeles as possible next cities to live in. San Francisco hasn’t been ruled out, either.

“We may or may not move back to San Francisco at some point, but the idea right now is we’d like to move around and figure out where we’re going to be happy and where we want to settle. We’ve spent time in San Francisco, so we have that experience already and we can always go back.”

Others say that young workers are sick of working remotely and want to come back to a vibrant city where they can spend time with their coworkers and meet new friends.

“People have spent the past couple of years doing remote learning, and nobody wants to continue doing that,” said Grant Lee, CEO of Gamma, a software startup based in San Francisco. “They are itching to be able to come into the office and be able to work on something together.”

Media/Pelosi Protecting Another Corrupt Democrat Member of Congress

We have Democrat Congressman Alan Lowenthal, who is a serial violator of the law.  He refuses to obey by the conflict of infest rules and the rules of reporting stock trades.  Yet, no ethics committee investigation, no censuring—even the media is quiet about this—as if Democrats do not have to obey the law. 

“Democratic Rep. Alan Lowenthal of California has again violated a federal conflicts-of-interest law — this time by failing to properly disclose four stock and corporate bond trades for himself or his wife, according to an Insider review of financial filings with the US House.

Lowenthal’s wife, Deborah Malumed, sold an Equinox Inc. corporate bond in June 2021 and stock in General Motors in August 2021, according to a report the congressman filed June 24 with the US House. The congressman also reported that the couple in February 2021 received shares of International Flavors & Fragrances in exchange for shares in DuPont, which had spun off the company.

But the federal Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 requires members of Congress to report such trades no more than 45 days after making them, meaning Lowenthal was months late reporting these trades.

Taken together, the trades are worth between $32,000 and $130,000. (Lawmakers are only required to report the value of their trades in broad ranges.)”

Honesty in Congress?  Not under Pelosi.

Democratic Rep. Alan Lowenthal is one of Congress’ most active stock traders, and he just violated a federal conflicts-of-interest law. Again.

Business Insider,  6/29/22 

Democratic Rep. Alan Lowenthal of California has again violated a federal conflicts-of-interest law — this time by failing to properly disclose four stock and corporate bond trades for himself or his wife, according to an Insider review of financial filings with the US House.

Lowenthal’s wife, Deborah Malumed, sold an Equinox Inc. corporate bond in June 2021 and stock in General Motors in August 2021, according to a report the congressman filed June 24 with the US House. The congressman also reported that the couple in February 2021 received shares of International Flavors & Fragrances in exchange for shares in DuPont, which had spun off the company.

But the federal Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 requires members of Congress to report such trades no more than 45 days after making them, meaning Lowenthal was months late reporting these trades.

Taken together, the trades are worth between $32,000 and $130,000. (Lawmakers are only required to report the value of their trades in broad ranges.)

A congressional stock-trade disclosure filing from Rep. Alan Lowenthal, a Democrat of California. US House of Representatives

Lowenthal spokesperson Keith Higginbotham said the congressman is traveling abroad and his congressional office had no immediate comment.

This is the second time in seven months that Lowenthal, who typically reports hundreds of stock transactions each year, according to federal records, has violated the STOCK Act’s disclosure provisions.

In November, Lowenthal was late disclosing his wife’s purchase of a corporate bond in cloud computing and technology company VMWare, worth between $15,001 and $50,000, Forbes first reported

“We have no comment,” Higginbotham told Insider at the time.

Numerous violations across Congress

Lowenthal is one of 64 members of Congress that Insider’s “Conflicted Congress” project and other media outlets have identified since 2021 as violating the STOCK Act with late disclosures. At least 182 senior congressional staffers have violated the STOCK Act’s disclosure provisions, as well.

Insider’s reporting also found numerous examples of conflicts of interest among federal lawmakers — both Democrats and Republicans.

It has long been legal for members of Congress to buy, sell, and hold individual stocks, including stocks in companies that have significant business before Congress or stand to be affected by congressional decisions.

But lawmakers on the left and right have in recent months introduced several bills to ban or otherwise limit their colleagues — and in some cases, spouses — from playing the stock market. Lawmakers are actively debating the matter, and some have promised to put a consensus bill up for a vote later this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Supporters of the congressional stock status quo have argued that current laws are adequate and that members of Congress should have the same investment rights as members of the general public.

Opponents argue that federal lawmakers should be held to the highest standards in avoiding financial conflicts of interest, be them real or perceived, and that the STOCK Act has proven to be inadequate.

“There’s an old expression about insanity and doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result,” said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, government affairs manager for nonpartisan government watchdog group Project on Government Oversight. “Congress has clearly entered the realm of the insane when it comes to financial conflicts of interest and they need to do something very different in order to give the public the result we deserve and expect.” 

GOP group polling memo: Abortion trails economy, crime as top issue

Let’s get real.  How often do you need an abortion?  Maybe once or twice in a lifetime you decide to kill your baby.  But the rule in politics is, don’t mess with my children (the live ones) or by pocketbook.  That is why James Carville famously said, “It’s the economy stupid.  During the week you go to the grocery store 2-3 times, you gas up at least once and go to a retail store at least once.  You will go to a restaurant.  In all these cases you will see higher costs, empty shelves and failed government schools.

Those who want to kill babies, will be able to do so.  But not affording rent, food or gas—that is a disaster—and voters will vote for their money and kids in November.  That is not good for the American Soviet party.

“Only 8 percent of voters polled said they considered abortion to be the most important issue to them, while 37 percent said the same about the high cost of living and inflation. Another 16 percent said the economy, in general, was their most important issue, while 9 percent said crime and violence were the most important to them. 

Among independent voters, 60 percent said inflation, jobs and the economy were their top concern, while only 21 percent said “abortion is the absolute most important issue” to them. “

GOP group polling memo: Abortion trails economy, crime as top issue

BY JULIA MANCHESTER, The Hill,   06/29/22 

Protesters for and against abortion demonstrate outside the Supreme Court on Monday, June 27, 2022 in the aftermath of its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Abortion trails the economy and crime as top issues ahead of the midterms, according to a new polling memo from the Republican State Leadership Committee. 

Only 8 percent of voters polled said they considered abortion to be the most important issue to them, while 37 percent said the same about the high cost of living and inflation. Another 16 percent said the economy, in general, was their most important issue, while 9 percent said crime and violence were the most important to them. 

Among independent voters, 60 percent said inflation, jobs and the economy were their top concern, while only 21 percent said “abortion is the absolute most important issue” to them. 

Additionally, 49 percent of likely voters said they would be willing to vote for a candidate who has a different view from them on abortion as long as the candidate agrees with them on most other issues. 

The polling also showed a poor national environment for Democrats ahead of the midterms, with 74 percent of likely voters saying the country is on the wrong track and 23 percent saying it is on the right track. President Biden’s unfavorable rating sits at 57 percent while 41 percent of likely voters said they have a favorable view of him. And Republican state legislative candidate lead Democrats on the generic ballot, 47 to 45 percent. 

“A little more than four months from Election Day, the political environment is still a disaster for state Democrats, state Republicans have a commanding lead on what is far and away the most important issue to voters, and the issues state Democrats are trying to exploit to distract from Biden’s failing economy are not going to be salient enough to save them come November,” the polling memo read. 

Biden pledges climate action despite ‘devastating’ Supreme Court rulingJudge to temporarily block Florida’s 15-week abortion ban

The polling memo comes as Democrats zero in on the issue of abortion access in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last week. Democrats have pointed to a number of polls that show voters unhappy with the high court’s decision. 

CBS News-YouGov poll released Sunday, 52 percent of voters said the decision was a “step backward,” while 31 percent said it was a “step forward.”

Nearly 1 out of 5 classes in California taught by underprepared teachers

The State of California admits that nearly 20% of classes are being taught by unprepared, unqualified teachers.  The State forgot to mention NO parent had been advised of this.  So while they think their child is getting a quality education they are not.  Add to this the destruction of math because it is a white supremacy construct, the miseducation about history, the teaching that some races are oppressors and others are victims, how to riot, rally and bully, education in California is a disaster for the kids.

“Most California teachers have the appropriate credentials and training to teach the subjects and students in their classes, but many do not, according to new statewide data on teacher assignments released today.

While 83% of K-12 classes in the 2020-21 school year were taught by teachers credentialed to teach that course, 17% were taught by teachers who were not.”

 In Oakland one third of the teachers are not qualified!  That is a scandal the media hides and the Educrats hide from the parents.

Nearly 1 out of 5 classes in California taught by underprepared teachers

BY DIANA LAMBERT AND DANIEL J. WILLIS, EdSource,  6/30/22  


Most California teachers have the appropriate credentials and training to teach the subjects and students in their classes, but many do not, according to new statewide data on teacher assignments released today.

While 83% of K-12 classes in the 2020-21 school year were taught by teachers credentialed to teach that course, 17% were taught by teachers who were not.  

Teachers are required to have either a multiple-subject, single-subject or special education credential to teach, depending on the grade level and coursework, but an ongoing statewide teacher shortage has meant that most school districts have had to rely on teachers who are not fully prepared to teach at least some classes on their schedule. Often that has meant teachers working with various emergency-style permits or waivers. 

Map shows percentage of classes taught by teachers with full credentials labeled by the state as clear.


Clear: Classes taught by teachers with the appropriate credentials.
Out-of-field: Classes taught by a credentialed teacher, but the teacher lacks the appropriate credential for the course being taught.
Interns: Classes taught by interns who have yet to complete teacher preparation or credential requirements.
Ineffective: Teacher not authorized to teach in California, or is teaching a course without authorization from the state.

“There is no question that well-qualified teachers are among the most important contributors to a student’s educational experience,” said State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. “California is committed to ensuring that every student has teachers who are well-prepared to teach challenging content to diverse learners in effective ways and are fully supported in their work. With this data, we can focus on measures to assist our educator workforce as they strive to provide high-quality teaching to all students, especially our most vulnerable students.” 

The new Teacher Assignment Monitoring Outcome data is the state’s newest tool in its battle to end a long and enduring teacher shortage. It is expected to guide state and local leaders how best use resources to recruit and retain teachers, and will inform California residents about teacher assignments in their local schools. It also allows California to finally meet federal Every Student Succeeds Act requirements.

Students are more likely to have under prepared teachers in small rural districts where teachers are more difficult to recruit, according to the data. At Big Lagoon Union Elementary School in Humboldt County 97% of the courses in 2020-21 were taught by interns, who generally have not completed the tests, coursework and student teaching required for a preliminary or clear credential. The school serves 24 students and has two teachers and a principal, according to state data.

Of the 10 school districts with the largest number of classes being taught by under prepared teachers, Oakland Unified has the largest enrollment  – 35,352 students. Almost a third of the classes in the district that year were being taught by teachers working without the correct credential or training, according to an EdSource analysis of the state data that excluded charter schools.

The new data categorizes teacher assignments as “clear,” “out-of-field,” “ineffective,” “interns,” “incomplete” or “unknown.”

It shows that 83.1% of the assignments that school year were clear because classes were taught by teachers with the appropriate credentials. Another 4.4% of the teaching assignments were deemed out-of-field because classes were taught by teachers who were credentialed, but hadn’t passed required tests or coursework that demonstrate competence to teach the course or the student population in the class. Interns taught 1.5% of classes. Teaching assignments were labeled ineffective if they were taught by people without authorization to teach in California, or who were teaching outside their credential or permit without authorization from the state. Some 4.1% of courses had that designation.

Elementary schools had the highest percentage of clear teaching assignments – 90.6%, while media arts courses had the highest percentage of ineffective assignments at 34%.

Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest district, was in line with the state average with 85% of its assignments clear, 3.3% out-of-field and 3.5% ineffective.

Other districts had a much higher number of teachers assigned to classes they weren’t fully prepared to teach. Maricopa Unified, Konocti Unified, Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified, Alpaugh Unified, Needles Unified, Oakland Unified, Chualar Union, Vineland Elementary, East Nicolaus Joint Union High and Borrego Springs Unified had 29% to 41% of their classes taught by an under prepared teacher in 2020-21 – the highest percentage of districts with more than 250 students.

School officials have numerous options that allow them to assign teachers to classes they aren’t credentialed to teach. Teachers who have not completed testing, coursework and student teaching can work with provisional intern permits and intern credentials. Credentialed teachers can teach classes outside their credential with limited assignment permits and waivers in order to meet staffing needs. School districts also can use the local assignment option to assign a teacher with a different teaching credential to a class when they can’t find an educator with the proper credential. 

“Amidst a nationwide staffing shortage, school districts are struggling to find teachers for classes and sometimes must utilize the local assignment option to place high-quality teachers in assignments that they aren’t credentialed to teach, yet they are proving to be highly effective in,” said Kindra Britt, spokeswoman for California County Superintendents Educational Services Association.

Court and community schools run by county offices of education have a particularly difficult time filling positions, she said. 

 “We are putting the most qualified person in front of students,” she said. “The data doesn’t really support that.”

Darling-Hammond calls the shortage of appropriately credentialed teachers in some communities worrisome, but is confident that recent state initiatives to recruit and retain teachers will increase the number of teachers in the state. The initiatives include $500 million for Golden State Teacher Grants, $350 million for teacher residency programs and $1.5 billion for the Educator Effectiveness Block Grant. 

But there is still work to be done, Darling-Hammond said. “A lot of people are beginning to recognize that retention is the name of the game,” she said. “It’s not about recruitment. Nine out of 10 positions are open because people left the year before.”

There won’t be any punitive action from the state if they have too many teachers without the correct credentials, although they may feel more public pressure now that the data is publicly available, Darling-Hammond said.

The data collection was mandated by Assembly Bill 1219, which passed in 2019. It also is the result of a two years of collaboration between the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the California Department of Education. 

The information will be used to inform state and local education officials about where teaching shortages exist and how deep they are so that resources can be targeted to places with the most need, Darling-Hammond said. The data also can help the state improve programs by tracking the attrition rates of teachers who completed residency or other teacher preparation pathways, she said.

“As we begin to emerge from a global pandemic, this data is an important tool to drive conversations about how we can best serve students,” said Mary Nicely, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction at CDE. “By launching this annual report, we are providing a new level of transparency to support schools, students, and families as we find ways to navigate today’s challenges to public education, including statewide education workforce shortages.” 

The data is submitted to the state from school districts each fall, based on teaching assignments on the first Wednesday in October. The teaching assignments are then compared to teachers’ credentials by Commission on Teacher Credentialing staff. If a teacher’s assignment doesn’t match his or her credential, the school district and a state monitor will review the case, said Cindy Kanzanis, division director at the California Department of Education.

More than 3,000 school employees were trained to use the new database at more than 30 in-person sessions and through several webinars, said state officials at a press conference on Wednesday.

But not all necessary employees had training or knew how to enter the codes correctly, resulting in many school or district entries being designated as “incomplete,” Britt said. The California Department of Education won’t correct the data, she said.

“Despite the confusing labels, our educators are effective; this issue is semantic, and we need steps to remediate the incorrect data,” Britt said. “I’m a little concerned about the damage that can be done to an already strained education workforce.”

Britt said the CCSEA is advocating for more training options for county offices.

The information on teacher assignments will be available to the public on the California Department of Education’s Dataquest website, and will be used in several other state and local reports including each School Accountability Report Card, the California School Dashboard, the Federal Teacher Equity Plan and the Williams Monitoring criteria.

California Makes History: First State in U.S. Giving Food Stamps to Illegal Aliens

What else can we do for illegal aliens to get them to come to California.  Free health care—got it.  Free education—got it.  Welfare—got it.  Biden is giving them cell phones.  Housing vouchers—got it.  Now all we have to do is feed them!  No need to work.  California is the first State to feed them.  Oh, Guv Newsom is using our law enforcement to protect them from the Feds.

“Expansion of the state’s CalFresh food stamps program will cost California’s taxpayers more than $35 million and about 75,000 illegal aliens are expected to enroll every year.

The move comes as Newsom’s budget deal will also ensure that California is the first state in the nation to provide taxpayer-funded health insurance to all of its 3.3 million illegal aliens.”

Makes you proud to know we really care about law breakers—more than our own people!

California Makes History: First State in U.S. Giving Food Stamps to Illegal Aliens

JOHN BINDER, Breitbart,  6/29/22  

Expansion of the state’s CalFresh food stamps program will cost California’s taxpayers more than $35 million and about 75,000 illegal aliens are expected to enroll every year.

The move comes as Newsom’s budget deal will also ensure that California is the first state in the nation to provide taxpayer-funded health insurance to all of its 3.3 million illegal aliens.

The sanctuary state of California will make history by becoming the first state in the nation to give food stamps to illegal aliens.

This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced a budget deal with Democrat state legislators that includes providing food stamps, paid for by California’s taxpayers, to illegal aliens 55 and older — the first initiative of its kind in the United States.

An executive with the group Nourish California told the Fresno Bee that the policy is historic for the state, saying, “California is once again making history by removing xenophobic exclusions to our state’s safety net.”

Expansion of the state’s CalFresh food stamps program will cost California’s taxpayers more than $35 million and about 75,000 illegal aliens are expected to enroll every year.

The move comes as Newsom’s budget deal will also ensure that California is the first state in the nation to provide taxpayer-funded health insurance to all of its 3.3 million illegal aliens.

Offering taxpayer-funded health insurance to its entire illegal alien population, the largest in the nation, is expected to cost California’s taxpayers about $2.4 billion annually. The plan is scheduled to begin in 2024.

OC Green Power Agency Holds Off On Firing CEO and Legal Counsel, Citing Investigation

How corrupt is government?  A Green Power Agency, to control your energy, can not fire its CEO or Legal Counsel.  Why?  Because the Board is being investigated!  For corruption—due to a whistleblower complaint filed by the CEO

Some board members have been trying to call a meeting to discuss firing him for a month, including Huntington Beach Councilman Dan Kalmick and Buena Park City Councilwoman Susan Sonne, whose cities have both approved votes of no confidence in Probolsky’s work. 

Their attempts to call a special meeting earlier this month were thwarted by the agency’s chief legal counsel Ryan Baron, who said Kalmick’s appointment to the board was handled improperly. 

Worse, this an agency set up to take away your right to choice in an energy supplier.  Government will own and control you use of energy via rationing and price.  The whole of them are corrupt in a free society.

OC Green Power Agency Holds Off On Firing CEO and Legal Counsel, Citing Investigation

Photo credit: Michael Coghlan via Flickr

BY NOAH BIESIADA, VOice of OC,  6/30/22 

  •  

Brian Probolsky is hanging onto his seat as CEO of Orange County’s green power agency as an outside investigator looks at the claims in his whistleblower complaint, despite some board members calling for his termination. 

Some board members have been trying to call a meeting to discuss firing him for a month, including Huntington Beach Councilman Dan Kalmick and Buena Park City Councilwoman Susan Sonne, whose cities have both approved votes of no confidence in Probolsky’s work. 

Their attempts to call a special meeting earlier this month were thwarted by the agency’s chief legal counsel Ryan Baron, who said Kalmick’s appointment to the board was handled improperly. 

After they called for a meeting to discuss Probolsky’s employment, he released a whistleblower complaint alleging Kalmick and Huntington Beach Councilman Mike Posey, who previously served as the city’s representative on the board, were engaging in double dealing and corruption. 

A grand jury report earlier this month backed up the board members seeking to remove Probolsky, which repeatedly questioned his expertise and said the agency displayed a troubling lack of transparency. 

When the board finally met to discuss the issue on Wednesday morning, they spent an hour and a half behind closed doors before ultimately reporting no action. 

In a news release sent out a few hours after the meeting ended, the agency announced it chose to “continue an independent, impartial investigation of whistleblower claims brought by OCPA’s CEO,” and said the investigation was being run by Jeffrey Wortman of the Seyfarth Shaw law firm. 

“The Board takes the management and governance of OCPA seriously. After consultation with OCPA’s counsel, the Board made the critical decision to continue the investigation in compliance with its legal obligations and best practices,” Sonne said in the release.

The news release also confirmed that the findings would be discussed behind closed doors by the board, leaving it unclear if the public would ever see the results of the investigation. 

Probolsky didn’t comment on the issue at the meeting and did not respond to requests for comment from Voice of OC.

Kalmick declined to comment on what happened in the closed session, and did not respond to further questions. 

Sonne did not respond to requests for comment, but at a Buena Park City Council meeting on Tuesday night, she called for a vote of no confidence in both Probolsky and Baron. 

“In order to represent the highest interest and well being of the residents of Buena Park, we need to send a strong message that the leadership and counsel for the agency must include significant industry experience and full transparency – as I have worked for since joining the OCPA as the Buena Park director,” Sonne said. 

But Probolsky staying on opens up questions over whether every city in the agency will stay on. 

Huntington Beach City councilmembers approved an official vote of no confidence in Probolsky earlier this month, and Buena Park councilmembers asked for city staff to bring a similar motion back to them at their next meeting. 

Buena Park Councilman Connor Traut agreed with Sonne, who pinned many of the agency’s issues on Probolsky.

“I believe OCPA’s instability is largely to blame on its executive leadership and that the transparency issues and lack of experience from its executive leadership have helped lead to its current state,” Traut said. 

Irvine mayor and board member Farrah Khan declined to comment, referring reporters to the board’s statement. 

The agency also doesn’t have many other cities looking to join, with leaders from some cities saying they’re hesitant to jump in while Probolsky is onboard. 

“I know there are other cities like us who’ve been looking for some time and naturally want to join Orange County Power Authority but are unable to because of the concerns we have with management with the organization,” said Laguna Beach Councilman George Weiss when he spoke during public comments at an Irvine City Council meeting this month about the agency. 

Weiss said he was also concerned about Probolsky’s honesty. 

“My own interactions with Brian Probolsky early on when he took this office were troubling,” he said. “I don’t feel we have a person here who can deal with people in a way that’s respectful and honest.” 

Right now, San Clemente City councilmembers are looking at joining the Clean Energy Alliance, a similar program based in San Diego County, rather than join the OC Power Authority. 

The interest in joining the power authority was low when the council originally discussed it in October of last year, with then Councilman, now Mayor, Gene James saying he had “no interest in going north and dealing with that Irvine crap.” 

What’s on your November ballot?

Once again CalMatters give us all the information needed, in terms we can understand.  In this article they not only explain the numerous measures that will be on the November ballot, but also explain the history of the initiative process and much more.

One item it does not mention is that it is the courts not the voters that decide the fate of ballot measures.  Or politicians that refuse to obey the law.  Though we voted for the death penalty neither Jerry Brown or King Gavin enforced this law.  Though we passed a ballot measure to stop illegal aliens from coming into this State or getting any benefits, Newsom just signed a budget that gives illegal aliens, almost all in the State, free health care—and food stamps!  Plus he is using our law enforcement to protect illegal aliens from the Feds for deportation.

Passing a ballot measure is just the first step in allowing the people a direct voice in setting policy.

“One of the most recent examples was in 2016, when there was Proposition 62 to repeal the death penalty, but also Proposition 66 to speed up the appeals process for capital punishment by putting trial courts in charge. Because 51.1% of voters approved Prop. 66, it superseded Prop. 62, approved by only 46.8%.”

We wanted the death penalty speeded up—the Democrats did not slow it down—they stopped it!  Yet we still elect Democrats oppose who do believe in a democratic vote.

Much is expected of the California voter. 

In any given election year, we may be asked to dust off our labor lawyer hats, brush up on oil and gas regulations, reacquaint ourselves with decades of tax policy, or analyze infrastructure funding. We may have to weigh the moral pros and cons of capital punishmentmarriage equality or pig protection and — over and over again — oversee all things dialysis clinic.

This November is no different. Voters will be asked to consider about 10 thorny policy proposals, from abortion to zero emission vehicles. What are these ballot measures really about? How did they make their way onto the ballot in the first place? And how did Californians first fall in love with direct democracy? 

What’s on your November ballot

Ben Christopher, CalMatters,  6/30/22 

After months of signature gathering, fundraising and legislative wrangling, we have a not-so-short list of ballot measures that you can vote on this fall.

  • Putting abortion safeguards in the California constitution: After the news leaked in early May that the U.S. Supreme Court was planning to rule that the federal constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to an abortion — and it did reverse the five-decade-old precedent on June 24 — California’s top Democrats, vowing to “fight like hell,” proposed adding the protection to the state constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment was introduced in the Legislature in early June and was passed with the overwhelming support of both chambers by the end of the month. If approved by the voters, it would bar the state from denying or interfering with a person’s right to choose an abortion and contraceptives.

    California has long been a safe haven for abortion access. In 1969 the state Supreme Court ruled that the California constitution’s right to privacy implies the right to an abortion. Reproductive access is also protected by statute. Supporters hope this amendment will reiterate that policy more explicitly and render it harder to reverse in the future, though some legal scholars say the language is still too ambiguous
  • Legalizing sports gambling, two ways: After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning state-regulated sports betting, two big-spending interests stepped up with California legalization proposals

    The first would allow Californians to bet on sports and other competitions online, but only through certified gaming tribes and large, well-established online betting companies. The measure, funded by industry giants FanDuel and DraftKings, would potentially direct hundreds of millions of dollars in fee revenue to housing and services for homeless Californians. 

    The other measure, supported by some of the state’s tribal governments, would only legalize sports betting in-person at tribal casinos and designated horse tracks. The measure, which would also allow tribes to offer roulette and other dice games, would raise potentially tens of millions of dollars for the state budget, most of which would be spent at the discretion of the governor and Legislature.
  • An $18 minimum wage (possible): In 2016, California lawmakers passed a law to gradually hike the state minimum wage, starting at $10 per hour in 2017 and ending at $15 per hour in 2022, at which point it would only increase at a lower rate to keep up with inflation. Joe Sanberg, a start-up investor and anti-poverty activist, wants the state to add on another round of hikes, bringing the minimum wage to $18 an hour for all employees by 2026.
  • Kidney clinic rules, third time a charm? This measure slaps dialysis clinics with a host of new restrictions, including a requirement that a doctor, nurse practitioner or a physician assistant be on site during all treatment hours. Centers would also be required to get state approval before shuttering or reducing services and to publicly list any doctors who have at least a 5% ownership stake in a clinic. Sound familiar? That’s because the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the union supporting this measure, has tried and failed to persuade voters to support new dialysis center regulations twice before, in 2018 and 2020, over vehement and very costly industry opposition. 
  • Extra school funding for arts and music: Sponsored by former Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent Austin Beutner, this measure would require the state to set aside a share of its public school funding — likely between $800 million to $1 billion per year — for arts and education classes. The new money would be disproportionately reserved for schools with many low-income students to hire new arts staff. 
  • Super-millionaires paying for pandemic prep (maybe): More than two years into the pandemic, a group of tech entrepreneurs are pushing the first statewide ballot measure that offers a direct response to COVID. By slapping a 0.75% surtax on any individual’s income of more than $5 million per year, it would raise between $500 million to $1.5 billion annually for 10 years. Half the windfall would be set aside to fund new DNA sequencing technology that could be used to detect new pathogenic dangers. The other half would be divided up between schools to renovate their ventilation systems and state and local public health departments to prepare for the next pandemic. 
  • Regular millionaires paying for electric cars: This measure would impose a new 1.75% tax on any individual’s income of more than $2 million per year to raise between $3 billion to $4.5 billion each year to fund a collection of greenhouse gas reducing initiatives. Most of the money would go toward new incentives for Californians to buy zero-emission vehicles and to build new electric charging or hydrogen fueling stations. A quarter of the new money would go toward wildfire fighting and prevention efforts. 
  • Reconsidering a flavored tobacco ban: In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill banning the sale of all flavored tobacco products, whether smoked, chewed or vaped. The tobacco industry gathered enough signatures to ask voters to overturn the law.

Smarter rules or ‘extortion?’

The Assembly floor at the state Capitol on May 31, 2022. Since 2014, lawmakers have had more time to negotiate with proponents and keep propositions off the ballot. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

By 2014, California voters were sick of ballots larded up with too many measures, many of them highly technical, specific to one industry or difficult to understand. 

So state lawmakers changed the rules. While initiatives can only go before voters in November, a tweak to the election code gave the Legislature more time to hold public hearings on those upcoming measures, while giving initiative backers the chance to revise or remove initiatives later in the process. The goal was a more deliberative, thoughtful process with more room for compromise.

But one person’s “compromise” is another person’s “legal extortion.”

Since 2016, initiative sponsors have pulled five partially-qualified measures from the ballot, but only in exchange for concessions from the Legislature. The most notorious example came in 2018 when the soda industry funded a ballot measure that would have made it much more difficult for local governments to raise taxes. They pulled from the initiative — which then-Gov. Jerry Brown called an “abomination” — after lawmakers agreed to ban new local soda taxes for the next 13 years. Critics at the time equated the strategy with nuclear brinksmanship and hostage taking, but most Democrats in the Legislature, however irate, weren’t willing to risk sending the tax-capping proposition to the voters.

This year, two off-ballot compromises were struck. Attorneys and consumer groups agreed to withdraw a measure that would have raised the cap on how much patients can sue for medical malpractice in exchange for a lower increase. And the former CEO of recycling company Recology and some environmentalists decided just before the June 30 deadline to pull a measure to phase out the use of non-recyclable plastic in exchange for an alternative bill. 

So that’s two fewer measures for you this November.

© 2022CalMatters

A little history lesson

California is one of 24 states with an initiative process. 

While the state has had some way for citizens to initiate laws since 1898, it formally adopted the ballot initiative process after a special election on Oct. 10, 1911, when then-Gov. Hiram Johnson signed into law the ability for voters to recall elected officials, repeal laws by referendum and to enact state laws by initiative. 

The push for more direct democracy was a part of a movement across the U.S. in the late 1800s for social and political reform. In California, it was fueled by concerns over the influence that Southern Pacific Railroad and other “monied” interests had over the Legislature.

From 1911 through the most recent ballot measures in November 2020, there have been 2,068 initiatives cleared for signature collection. Of those, 392, or about 19%, qualified for the ballot. And of those that made the ballot, 137, or 35%, have been approved by voters, including 39 constitutional amendments. 

The most measures on a single ballot? 48 in 1914, followed by 45 in 1990 and 41 in 1988.

What’s the difference between a referendum and an initiative? 

A referendum allows voters to approve or reject a statute passed by the Legislature, but with some exceptions: “urgency” statutes necessary for public peace, health, or safety; statutes calling elections; or laws that levy taxes or provide appropriations for current expenses. 

Initiatives, which are more common than referenda, propose new statutes, as well as amendments to California’s constitution. Since 2011, initiatives can only appear on the November general election ballot.    

In most cases, initiatives and referenda share the same signature requirements — at least 5% of the total votes cast for the office of governor at the last election. A constitutional amendment initiative, however, requires at least 8% of the total votes cast at the most recent gubernatorial election. 

Currently, that’s a minimum of 623,212 signatures for an initiative on a statute, and 997,139 for an initiative to change the constitution.

© 2022CalMatters

The long and winding road to the ballotink

A voter casts their mail-in ballot at the California Museum in downtown Sacramento on June 7, 2022. Besides the same statewide offices as on the primary ballot, the November ballot will include numerous propositions. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

What can be an initiative? Anything that’s the “proper subject of legislation” – as long as it only addresses one subject.

To get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, there are a few steps that can begin more than a year before the election.

  • An idea is proposed by citizens to the state attorney general’s office with a $2,000 fee, or a bill is passed by the Legislature.
  • A title and summary are written by the attorney general.

In California, unlike in some other states, the ballot title and summary are not drafted by the secretary of state or an election board. The language is meant to be neutral, but former attorneys general Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris were accused sometimes of not staying impartial. 

For example, in 2020, Becerra described Proposition 6, a measure that would have repealed a $5 billion a year package of taxes and fees on motorists, as: “Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding. Requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees to be approved by the electorate.”

After a lawsuit, a judge ordered the first part of the sentence to be rewritten, but that was overturned by a state appeals court, which ruled that the attorney general has “considerable latitude” in drafting the title.

  • Signatures are gathered.
    The number of signatures required is based on a percentage of total votes in the last gubernatorial election. 
  • Lawmakers are alerted, after which they may hold public hearings.
    The Legislature is not allowed to amend the measure or prevent it from appearing on the ballot, but a 2014 law allows more room for compromise for proponents to withdraw qualified measures from the ballot.
  • Collected signatures are verified by the Secretary of State’s office.
    This is done in two ways, once measure proponents file at least 100% of the required signatures to qualify. Under the random sample method, each county elections office is required to verify at least 500 signatures or 3% of the number of signatures filed in their office, whichever is greater. If the completed sample shows that the number of valid signatures is projected to be more than 110% of the required signatures, the measure qualifies. If it’s less than 95%, the measure fails to qualify.

    If the number of valid signatures in the random sample represents between 95% and 110% of the required total, then the full check method requires election officials to verify every signature on the petition filed with their office.

    Campaigns pay anywhere from $2 to $6 per signature to petition gatherers, depending on how well-funded the campaign is, and how close they are to the required number of signatures and the deadline. Over the last two years, due to COVID-19 safety measures and the labor shortage, the price per signature could rise to as much as $15, some strategists told the Los Angeles Times.

A statewide ballot measure is approved by a simple majority vote of the people. 

Big money, big interests

The founding story of the California ballot measure is an electoral tale of David versus Goliath. In 1911, progressives introduced the initiative statute, the referendum and the recall as a way to wrest ultimate lawmaking authority away from a corrupt Legislature and bestow it upon the electorate.

But from the early days, Goliath learned how to fight back. 

“The controlling factor is money,” said Glen Gendzel, a history professor at San José State University who has written about the early history of Californian direct democracy. “If it’s a pay to play system, then those who have the most money are going to play the most.”

In 1920, white agricultural interests helped sponsor a measure banning Japanese immigrants from owning farmland. In 1926, the dairy lobby waged an expensive war against margarine producers. Throughout that decade, private utilities helped defeat three efforts to establish a public hydroelectric power agency. As early as 1923, a special legislative committee came to a depressing conclusion about California’s experiment with direct democracy: “Victory is on the side of the biggest purse.”

That wasn’t always the case — nor is it today. Sometimes the appearance of trying to buy a law can backfire. In 2010, PG&E spent nearly $50 million — more than 300 times the opposition — on a campaign to make it more difficult for local governments to set up their own public power agencies. The utility lost.

In recent years, many business interests have gone to the ballot not just to advance their own policy goals, but to reverse the work of California’s increasingly Democratic Legislature. That strategy paid off for ride-hailing app companies and bail bond agents in 2020, when both industries spent millions to undo state laws aimed at transforming or outlawing their business models. No doubt cigarette and vape liquid manufacturers were taking note. This year, they’re funding an effort to nix a state ban on flavored tobacco

It’s possible for multiple measures on the same topic to appear on the ballot – even ones that conflict with each other. If one is approved by voters and the others are rejected, it’s simple: The approved one takes effect. And if several pass and they don’t conflict with each other, they all go into effect.

But if multiple measures pass that conflict, the measure or provision of a measure that receives more “yes” votes is the one that goes into effect.

This November, that’ll be the case with the big-money battle between competing online sports betting measures, one sponsored by national giants in the industry, the other by some Native American tribes.

One of the most recent examples was in 2016, when there was Proposition 62 to repeal the death penalty, but also Proposition 66 to speed up the appeals process for capital punishment by putting trial courts in charge. Because 51.1% of voters approved Prop. 66, it superseded Prop. 62, approved by only 46.8%.

In 2010, Prop. 20, a measure adding congressional redistricting to the duties of an independent redistricting commission, competed with Prop. 27, which aimed to disband the commission. Prop. 27 failed.

And on the 1988 ballot, Californians faced five competing initiatives on car insurance reform. Voters passed just one. Also in 1988, Prop. 68 and Prop. 73 went head-to-head on the regulation of political campaign contributions. Prop. 73 received more “yes” votes, and after a legal battle, the California Supreme Court ruled it would take effect – only to be tossed out by another lawsuit.

Vista, California City Council Turns RACIST—Demands Discrimination

I received this email from Vista Councilmember John Franklin.  I thought California opposed discrimination.  Instead in Vista, the KKK apparently is running the show.

“The permits to create new cannabis cultivation businesses will be awarded to exactly three people only. Councilmembers called for an “equity” clause, which as described, will create a lottery for at least two of the three permits, and if you’re not the right race, you need not apply, because you won’t be allowed. 

Why isn’t AG Bonta demanding an end of this?  Why is U.S. AG Garland not stopping this?  Why isn’t the Democrat Party opposing racism and the right to apply for government programs opened to all citizens, not just the currently preferred ones?  California in 2022 is as racist as Alabama in 1952.

Vista, California City Council Turns RACIST—Demands Discrimination

Councilmember John Franklin, Vista, California,  6/29/222

Dear Steve,

I am dumfounded. 

Last night, Vista’s City Council voted to instruct staff to deny entry into a lottery for permits, unless your skin is the right color.

Mayor Ritter and I voted no.

I thought we were done with government sanctioned race discrimination in America. In Vista apparently, we’re just getting started.    The permits to create new cannabis cultivation businesses will be awarded to exactly three people only. Councilmembers called for an “equity” clause, which as described, will create a lottery for at least two of the three permits, and if you’re not the right race, you need not apply, because you won’t be allowed.  

Watch the entire item for yourself, fast forward to 1:50:00 :https://youtu.be/mm35_xj_-2s

I believe treating people differently because of the color of their skin is morally outrageous, and its unconstitutional. 

The 14th amendment to the Constitution says, “No state shall make it enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 

The Supreme Court clarified that separate accommodations for separate races violates the 14th amendment.

What’s most concerning, is that today we’re discussing reparations and racial preferences in cannabis permits, but we could just as easily be discussing building permits, recreation programs or public safety policy. Where will we draw the line when it comes to unequal treatment under the law?

In 106 days, Vista will choose a new Council majority, and what kind of City we want is on the ballot. I hope you’ll join me in voting for a majority that will represent all Vistan’s equally under the law. 

Tomorrow happens to be the end of the quarter, when candidates will report the progress of their campaigns. If you agree with me that government should be color blind, I hope you’ll consider supporting me and the team of common sense leaders I’m asking you to elect.  You can sign up to volunteer, or very importantly, make a contribution today to ensure that Vista has a majority that will fight for true equality and fairness under law. 
  Here’s how you can help. Go to:

www.franklinformayor.com/donate
I can’t thank you enough for your help and support. 
Sincerely,

John 

John B. Franklin Deputy Mayor Candidate for Mayor
Vista, California