In May, I posted that a lawsuit filed by Southborough residents against selectmen and the Town was moving to the Federal Courts. Based on an amended complaint, the complainants were able to return the case to Worcester Superior Court. In an indirectly related matter, the Attorney Generals Office found that the Town again violated Open Meeting Law.

The original incident that prompted the lawsuit partially related to an Attorney Generals Office 2018 finding that the Board of Selectmen violated Open Meeting Law. Resident Louise Barron accused the board of minimizing the issue and repeatedly breaking the law. The relates to then-Selectman Dan Kolendas outburst towards Barron during and following the comments. Additional claims against selectmen and the Town relate to actions by the board following the incident.

This June, the board received a new ruling from the AGs office that they again violated OML. The AGs office determined that the Town took five days longer than allowed to respond to the Barrons Attorneys request for certain meeting minutes.The finding was an informal action with no punishments or directives issued towards the board.

The attorney had asked the AG to determine that the Town was wrongfully holding back unredacted Executive Session minutes. She wasnt successful on that count.

On December 16th, Attorney Ginny Kremer submitted a request for unredacted meeting minutes from two Recreation Commission meetings. A response by Town Counsel, maintaining that no unredacted minutes would be released, was received on December 31st.The Assistant AG determined that was a violation based on the 10 calendar day requirement.

However, the Assistant AG found she was unable to determine if the confidentiality was justified.*

As for the lawsuit. . .

Selectmen had filed to move the case to the U.S. District Court based on claims that a residents First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution were violated. The Towns attorney argued that a federal court was the appropriate venue.

Since then, the complainants asked to be sent back to the countys court, stating that they were amending the complaint to remove the First Amendment claims. The return to the Worcester court was approved.

You may assume that the amended complaint would reduce the number of Claims lodged. In fact, the recent amendment ups the count from four counts to six.

Three counts new focus solely on Kolenda.The amended list of Counts in the complaint are:

Initially, the first count above also referenced First Amendment Rights and was lodged againstKolenda, Shea, Healy, Bracccio and Stivers [sic]. An additional Count has been removed that focused solely on the First Amendment and charged Kolenda, Shea, Healy, Bracccio, Stivers, and Town of Southborough of violating Barrons First Amendment Rights.

The amended complaint still demands a jury trial.

*The AAGs letter explains:

The complainant challenges the Boards assertion that the April 25 and May 7, 2019 executive session minutes are protected by the attorney-client privilege and exemption (c) ofM.G.L. c. 4 7(26). . . .

Here, the Board is not relying on the Open Meeting Law as a basis for withholding the minutes, but rather has released the minutes subject to redaction pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and a Public Records Law exemption.Because the executive session minutes at issue here are no longer being withheld from the public under the Open Meeting Law, we find no violation of that Law in this respect.

The Open Meeting Law authorizes the Attorney General to investigate a complaint alleging a violation of the law and to request documents in the course of that investigation, but does not give us the authority to determine whether the Boards assertion of the attorney-client privilege was justified. . . In addition, the Attorney General may not require a public body to disclose any documentary material which would be privileged. . . . If the complainant disagrees with the Boards determination that these redactions are privileged, she may file an Open Meeting Law complaint in Superior Court to challenge the Boards decision to withhold the minutes, and request that the court review the purportedly privileged documents.

See the article here:

Barron lawsuit amended to return to Worcester Superior Court; another OML violation determined - mysouthborough

Shown is an aerial rendering for the street mural planned for outside the federal courthouse in Laredo.

Shown is an aerial rendering for the street mural planned for outside the federal courthouse in Laredo.

Photo: Courtesy Of The No Border Wall Coalition

Shown is an aerial rendering for the street mural planned for outside the federal courthouse in Laredo.

Shown is an aerial rendering for the street mural planned for outside the federal courthouse in Laredo.

City to develop permit so other groups can paint the street too

Laredo City Councils decision last week to allow the local No Border Wall Coalition to paint DEFUND THE WALL on the street in front of the federal courthouse was hashed out again on Monday, and it turned into a conversation about fairness in freedom of speech.

Hordes of Laredoans, both for and against this project, submitted public comments that were read aloud to council.

If you are going to allow dummies to paint a mural in front of the federal courthouse on Victoria Street, you also need to have one painted that says Laredoans for the wall on the same street, right beside it. If you dont, this will show you guys are racist and biased. So its both, or nothing at all, wrote Joel H.

Antonia Taylor, a law student and daughter of a retired Border Patrol supervisor, said this mural is a way to peacefully demonstrate Laredos bonds with its sister city Nuevo Laredo.

We spent years nurturing our relationship with them by holding ceremonies like the Abrazo Children just to erect a wall in their face. I think thats ridiculous and not the message Laredo stands for. Whether the wall is funded or not may be out of our control, but our message regarding how we feel about it is not, she wrote.

Several other people noted that in the past two months, cities all over the country have allowed activist groups to paint large street murals with messages like Black Lives Matter.

But all of these cities have street painting ordinances, noted Acting City Attorney and Assistant City Manager Kristina Hale.

The city has already gotten multiple requests from members of the community who also want to paint on the street, but the city doesnt have a permitting process for this, she said.

The question here is whether everybody is allowed the same use of city resources. So as long we let every message, every person have the same rights to paint on the streets, and the same opportunity, then that would be permitted in the First Amendment and our own ethics code, Hale said.

Carlos Flores, an attorney representing landowners fighting the governments attempt to build the wall on their property and a member of the No Border Wall Coalition, said he agreed with this analysis.

If its going to be protected free speech for one group, it should be protected free speech for another group, Flores said. So you have one group thats against the wall and one group thats for the wall. The city cant decide, Hey, Im going to prefer one over the other.

The city is recognizing the No Border Wall Coalitions First Amendment rights by allowing them to complete this mural, and still recognizing the First Amendment rights of others by creating a permit process that would allow them to do the same, he said.

The No Border Wall Coalitions mural design was also presented to the citys traffic engineer, who deemed their location choice unsafe, Hale noted. City Manager Robert Eads said the mural probably wont be yellow, as it was presented, because it could confuse drivers. And the paint they use will be removable, he said.

Councilman Roberto Balli made a motion that city staff develop an ordinance for this kind of street permit and present it to council in October. Since council had already approved the No Border Wall Coalitions project, he motioned for it to be allowed to move forward in the meantime.

This was approved by council members Rudy Gonzalez, Vidal Rodriguez, Merc Martinez, Marte Martinez and Balli.

Council members George Altgelt and Nelly Vielma, who had voted in favor of this project last week, voted against after hearing so many of their constituents disapprove.

Vielma said she agrees with the coalitions message, which is why she voted to approve the mural last week, but shes a stickler for ethics and thinks council should be unbiased.

She also heard from many of her constituents in law enforcement who have said that the message to defund the wall is akin to a dangerous movement to defund the police. Council needs to show their support for law enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents, Vielma said.

Councilman Gonzalez said that Laredo Police officers have already sent him a rendering of a message they would like to paint on a local street to back the blue.

Altgelt expressed concern about the perceived political message of defund the wall and the potential safety issues that the mural could bring to Victoria Street.

Flores said he was not surprised to see council members renege their vote from last week. This is the political process, he said.

Theyre elected officials, so they have to have their space to be influenced by their constituents, and I dont think thats inappropriate, Flores said.

Julia Wallace may be reached at 956-728-2543 or jwallace@lmtonline.com

See original here:

City to develop permit so other groups can paint the street too - Laredo Morning Times

PORT NECHES, Texas A screenshot showing a code of conduct policy for Port Neches-Groves ISD parents is getting a lot of attention online.

12News Investigates looked into the origins of the policy.

Is the PNGISD parent code of conduct a new policy?

Our source is PNG ISD assistant superintendent Julie Gauthier.

She says the policy has been in place since 2018, and sent 12News a copy of the code of conduct dated 2018.

It's the same parent code of conduct parents are being asked to sign this year.

Do other school districts have a parent code of conduct?

Beaumont ISD's parent code of conduct is very similar, and can be found on the district's website. Hamshire Fannett also has a code of conduct.

While it's hard to say exactly how many schools have adopted a parent code of conduct, 12News can verify that several Southeast Texas schools do implement them.Will this infringe on parent's first amendment rights if they choose to post something negative about the school on social media?

Gauthier says the policy isn't meant to take away anyone's freedom. Instead, it's a proactive approach the school district has adopted to make sure the district and parents are working in the best interest of the child.

Also on 12NewsNow.com

Continue reading here:

VERIFY: Is the Port Neches-Groves ISD parent code of conduct new this year? - 12newsnow.com KBMT-KJAC

The protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd in late May prompted allegations of infiltration byout-of-stateanti-fascist agitators (which have beenrefuted) and white supremacists (which have beenborne out). But little attention has been paid to a third group of infiltrators: police. As with so many other police practices that are now coming under scrutiny, the longstanding practice of using undercover police to monitor protests and protest movements should be closely examined and reconsidered.

There is solid evidence that police infiltrated the recent demonstrations. A North Dakota officerposed as a protester, photographed activists, and yelled F**k the police while checking for guns at a Black Lives Matter protest in Fargo. Undercover officersdisguised as Orthodox Jewsattended anti-racism protests in New Jersey. The Texas Department of Public Safetyoutright acknowledgedembedding undercover officers in the protests to root out criminals.

The idea, ostensibly, is that plainclothes officers can overhear people conspiring to commit violence or other illegal acts and disrupt their plots. But this rationale falls apart on closer examination. The notion that there were coordinated plans to engage in illegal activity turns out to be false. An internalDepartment of Homeland Security intelligence assessmentfound that most of the violence at protests has been committed by opportunists interested in looting, not agitators or extremists.

The benefits of infiltration are thus speculative at best. On the other hand, there are proven downsides. Indeed, undercover officerssometimes initiateorenableviolence between police and protesters, further escalating thealready-violent policing of dissent a problem that is particularly pertinent foranti-police brutalityandBlack-ledprotests, which meet especially forceful resistance from law enforcement.

Additionally,the history of police infiltrationis one of the government disproportionately targeting progressive activists and movements sometimes even going so far as to gin up violence as justification for scrutiny rather than keeping protesters safe.

Take, for instance, the FBIs Counter Intelligence Program, known asCOINTELPRO. From 1956 to 1971, it targeted groups that the government deemed subversive, with methods including unconstitutional surveillance and infiltration. Included in its mission were efforts to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of the Black Panthers and other Black nationalist groups. COINTELPRO was designed explicitly to target Black activists because of their political stances. One of its ignominiesinvolved an FBI informantproviding Black Panthers with sticks of dynamite to blow up the Statue of Liberty.

Or take the more recent example of the protests surrounding President Trumps inauguration. As part of aninvestigation into a potential conspiracyto foment violence, police officersinfiltrateda small group called Disrupt J20 that was planning meetings for the demonstrations. They followed up by arresting more than 200 anti-capitalist and anti-fascist activists, journalists, and legal observersen masse, simply because the individuals were in the vicinity of acts of property damage. The resulting prosecutions casesended in mistrials, dismissals, and acquittalsover the next 18 months. And while law enforcement agenciesfocustheir infiltration on the advocacy of left-leaning groups, Black protesters, and Muslims, theycontinueto payinsufficient attentionto the United States manyviolent white supremacistthreats.

Police infiltration of protests also has a chilling effect on protesters First Amendment rights.Fearof plainclothes police joining protests to surveil activists,the danger to undocumented immigrantsof Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers attendance at protests, thepresence of agents-provocateur, and the resultingdistrust of ones fellow protestersall discourage would-be marchers from participating.

These significant risks and harms outweigh any marginal benefit that might accrue from police infiltration, at least as it has been practiced up to now. It is apparent that the use of undercover officers at protests needs to be revisited.

At a minimum, there should be more transparency and accountability accompanying the use of undercover police in protests. One model for this is the wave of surveillance oversight legislation being passed across the nation, most recently in the form of thePOST Act in New York City. The measure will require the New York City Police Department to disclose basic information about the surveillance toolsit uses, the deployment of those tools, and safeguards for New Yorkers civil liberties. Analogous legislation requiring police departments to develop and share policies regarding infiltration operations, including specific protections for protesters First Amendment rights, could increase their accountability to the communities they are intended to serve.

A more far-reaching approach would be to adapt and expand the recommendations of the Church Committee a Senate panel that investigated the abuses of various intelligence authorities, including COINTELPRO by law enforcement. The recommendations in the committees landmark 1976reportfocused on raising the threshold for intelligence collection by shifting the focus from association and advocacy to demonstrated dangerous conduct. A similar approach could be adopted in the context of police infiltration of protests for instance, by limiting its use to cases in which there is a preexisting investigation based on facts that support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

It is not clear, however, that raising the threshold would solve the problem. In Washington, DC, the2004 First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Actalready requires police to obtain clearance from top police officials, along with evidence of a threat of violence, for infiltration of advocacy groups and those measures did not prevent the J20 debacle. And the citys auditor had previously raised concerns about police noncompliance with the law.

A broader solution is to simply prohibit plainclothes police from attending protests. Using undercover police in connection with protests and protest movements can only further undermine trust between law enforcement and communities at a time when that trust has already been badly eroded by repeated, high-profile instances of racialized police brutality. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of undercover operations in other settings, protests are one context where people should feel free to come together and express themselves without fear of surreptitious law enforcement monitoring.

More here:

Police Infiltration of Protests Undermines the First Amendment - brennancenter.org

A federal appeals court has upheld a $400,000 jury award to an Illinois school superintendent whose contract was not renewed amid turmoil that started with her effort to have an audit of district finances.

The superintendent, Denean Adams of the 2,200-student Harvey school district in suburban Chicago, alleged in court papers that after she started the process for the audit in 2015, one school board member phoned her and said Adams was "itching for an ass-kicking."

Adams filed a complaint with the police, and after a period of further discord in which the superintendent suspended the business manager for alleged financial irregularities, the board informed Adams that her contract would not be renewed. She took medical leave in 2016 and did not return.

Adams sued the board, alleging retaliation for exercising her First Amendment free speech rights. A federal district court jury ruled for Adams and awarded $400,000 in damages. The trial judge added some $190,000 in attorneys' fees.

The school board appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, arguing that a police report is a personal grievance, and not a matter of public concern, and thus was outside the scope of First Amendment protection.

In its Aug. 3 decision in Adams v. Board of Education of Harvey School District No. 152, a three-judge panel of the court ruled unanimously that Adams's report to the police was protected by the First Amendment and that the jury reasonably concluded that the report played a role in ending her employment.

While a police report might normally be considered a personal grievance, the court said, Adams's report was not a straightforward report of a crime.

"It was a report by the superintendent of a school district that she had been threatened with violence by a member of the school board," the opinion said, adding that "a potential for physical altercations between public officials (the superintendent and an elected member) implies that an important public institution was not working properly. This is a legitimate subject of public concern."

Further, the discord began when Adams proposed a forensic audit, and that idea "seems to have unsettled at least one member of the board."

The appeals court opinion suggests that much of Adams's speech during the episode was related to her job, and under Supreme Court precedent the board could have argued the speech was unprotected by the First Amendment on that basis.

"Almost everything that happened in this dispute is on-the-job speech within the scope of the superintendent's and members' duties," the appeals court said. But the board had failed to raise an argument under the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos until it was too late, the appeals court said.

The appeals panel rejected a cross-appeal from Adams seeking an increase in attorney's fees from the $190,000 that was awarded to $485,000, calling the request "outlandish."

Read the original post:

Court Upholds $400000 Jury Award to Superintendent Ousted Amid Discord - Education Week

In a campaign season when civil discourse seems headed to another record low, rhetorical excess has just been given a little extra boost.

For three decades Tennessee has made it a minor crime to put knowingly false statements about a candidate in oppositional campaign literature one of the more explicit restrictions on political speech in the nation's law books. But last week a state judge said it was a bridge way too far over the First Amendment.

A prominent democracy reform group, Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws, sued and won the right to declare in print something hyperbolic in the extreme: That a Republican state legislator is "literally Hitler," the Nazi fuhrer who died in Germany three-quarters of a century ago.

The point, the group said, was to produce a campaign flyer with obviously false assertions in order to test the law, which it says has been unconstitutionally stifling properly provocative satire and criticism of state officials.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

"The framers of our Constitution believed that robust public speech and debate would be essential to self-government," it said. "This law tried to put its thumb on the scale, favoring the very people who enacted it Tennessee state lawmakers to the detriment of members of the voting public."

Judge Ellen Hobbs Lyle of Nashville agreed last week, declaring the law a violation of both the state and federal Constitutions. Its main flaw, she said, was that it punished false speech against a candidate but does nothing to rein in lies in support of a politician, "viewpoint dicrimination" not permitted by the First Amendment. She also said government regulators should not be in the business of distinguishing truth from falsity and that the law bans far more speech than Tennessee could ever punish, besides.

"For emphatic and memorable communication in its campaign materials opposing candidates, the plaintiff uses the literary device of knowingly stating a literally false statement about a candidate in the context of satire, parody and hyperbole," the judge said in her nine-page ruling, and that's one of the Sensible Election Laws group's free speech rights.

The organization was taking on state Rep. Bruce Griffey, a Republican whose first term has been marked by proposing a wave of controversial, conservartuive culture war measures, including a ban on refugee resettlement in Tennessee and a requirement that students use school bathrooms that correspond with their sex at birth. And in January, he proposed a bill that would authorize the state to chemically castrate some people convicted of sex offenses against minors a policy in place in at least seven states.

The good government group tweeted it would begin distributing its leaflets, which say "Bruce Griffey is LITERALLY HITLER" at the top and, underneath that, "Bruce Griffey: an agenda the Nazis would love."

The 1989 law makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $50 fine and 10 days in jail to distribute "campaign literature in opposition to any candidate in an election" if any "statement charge, allegation, or other matter contained therein with respect to such candidate is false." It makes no exceptions for satire, hyperbole or parody.

The state attorney general's office has not announced whether it will appeal.

Griffey is solidly favored to win a second term in November in a rural district west of Nashville.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Read the rest here:

Tenn. judge gives OK to call candidate 'literally Hitler' - The Fulcrum

In light of the circumstances surrounding incoming lecturer Dr. Jesse Goldberg, we at Auburn Spectrum are reminded of another situation where an employee's social media posts caused an outrage. Last year, Bruce Murray from the College of Education was shown to have made and shared several posts that deny and condemn the existence of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Despite the outcry from more than 200 faculty members and countless students who said that these comments perpetuated the harm that Auburn's LGBTQ+ students have to face every day, the University refused to condemn the comments as hate speech, saying that this professor's posts on social media and the opinions he submitted to newspapers over several years are protected by free speech.

Dr. Goldberg made posts condemning an institution he believes is violent and contributes to an oppressive system. Less than a week later his posts are condemned by the University's administration as hate speech (even though police are not considered a protected class by the University while gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are), and his job is at risk before it ever even began.

By contrast, it was three weeks after The Plainsman published the article about Murray before anyone from the administration made a statement, and even then it was two sentences expressing vague and nonspecific support for the community harmed by the rhetoric that he had shared repeatedly.

If Auburn University is going to swiftly and harshly condemn one employee's social media posts for hate speech, it should do so in all cases.

If Auburn University is going to passively allow employees to share their opinions on social media and in newspapers - no matter how reprehensible some may find them - in the name of free speech, it should do so in all cases.

The University cannot pick and choose when it wishes to allow freedom of speech and expect people to stand idly by in the face of such hypocrisy.

Get The Plainsman straight to your inbox.

If Bruce Murray's bigoted remarks are protected by the First Amendment, then Jesse Goldberg's anti-police remarks should receive similar protection.

Heather Mann is the president of Spectrum, Auburn University's Gay-Straight Alliance.

Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.

Heather Mann | Spectrum President

More:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | "Free Speech" should apply to all, not just some - The Auburn Plainsman

As construction resumes on the historic Greek Orthodox church destroyed in the terror attacks onSept.11, 2001, faith leaders in charge tellFox News it will honor the sacred ground on which it stands.

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Lower Manhattan is being resurrected after nearly 20years, not just for the church's flock, but for all to see and reflect, as it began Monday in a ceremony with Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

NEW YORK CITY SHOOTINGS ROSE 177% IN JULY, DATA SHOWS

"It's going to be a place where people can say, for the next 1,000 years, we will never forget what happened here," John Catsimatidis, CEO of Gristedes Foods and board member of The Friends of St. Nicholas, which formed in January to get the project back on track after years of scandal and mismanagement, told "Fox & Friends" Tuesday.

"It's going to be good for New York. We're going to have three million visitors a year, and it's a place for people to come and pray,"Catsimatidis, a billionaire in New York City who hadrun for mayor, said ashe is considering another run.

HANNITY LAMENTS NEW YORK CITY 'DETERIORATING BEFORE OUR VERY EYES' DUE TO FAILED DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP

Named for the patron saint of sailors, the original St. Nicholas opened its doors on Cedar Street in 1916, quickly becoming the first stopping point for Greek immigrants after they left Ellis Island and serving the community for 85 years until the South Tower of the World Trade Center came crashing down on New York's darkest day.

"This is going to be the light on the hill," said Father Alex Karloutsos of the Greek Orthodox Church of America. "In 2001 it became a historical place because of now we have 3,000 people that lost their lives, victims and heroes, and we need to have a sense of hope, of light, in the midst of all this darkness.

"This is all about New York. This is all about America,"Karloutsos added.

NYC CHURCH BARRICADES FRONT DOOR AFTER HOMELESS TRY BREAKING IN, DEFECATING ON STEPS

The Greek Orthodox leaderpointed to Turkey's recent decision to convertthe Hagia Sophia, first built as a Greek Orthodox Church nearly 1,500 years ago, back into a mosque after being a museum.

"Here in this country, religious freedoms, what we stand for as a country, the land of the free, the home of the brave, the First Amendment of the United States, glory be to God, Saint Nicholas is going toreflect the best of our Orthodox faith, butthe best of America," Karloutsos added. "That's what makes me proud about this church."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Father Evagoras Constantinides, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese spokesman, told "Fox & Friends First"thatthe "church is the last piece that will bring a sense of solidarity to the visitor" outside the 9/11 Memorial.

"That place of peace is coming back with the finishing and reopening of St. Nicholas next year," he added.

Continue reading here:

Iconic church destroyed on 9/11 being rebuilt: 'We will never forget what happened here' - Fox News

Journalists want to have it both ways

In your reprint of the Seattle Times editorial, it seems the journalist wants to be on both sides of the First Amendment. If they print the truth, the mob will turn on them, so they want to withhold anything that exposes the mob. It is reported more than 500 assaults on media journalist were reported while they were covering a peaceful demonstration of First Amendment rights. The police want unpublished material to identify illegal acts and perpetrators. The journalist think this is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

kAmx 5:D28C66 :7 E96J 2C6 ?@E C6A@CE:?8 @3D6CG65 @44FCC6?46D[ H9J 2C6 E96J E96C6n xE D66>D E@ >6 C6A@CE:?8 E96 ECFE9 D9@F=5 36 E96 8@2=] %96? =6E E96 A6@A=6 564:56 H92E E96J E9:?<]k^Am

kAm%96 >65:2 😀 3:2D65 2?5 C6A@CED H92E E96 =2E6DE A@=:E:42= 4@CC64E?6DD 5:4E2E6D] x 9@A6 E9:D 😀 E96 DE2CE @7 2 324<=2D9 282:?DE E96 >65:2] %96C6 😀 ?@ A=246 7@C 3:2D65 C6A@CE:?8 >2DBF6C25:?8 2D E96 ECFE9]k^Am

kAms@? (2CC6?[ p?8=6E@?k^Am

kAmr=2DD:4 >@G:6 42CC:6D 649@6D @7 4FCC6?E 6G6?EDk^Am

kAm(9:=6 H2E49:?8 E96 @=5 4=2DD:4 >@G:6 y6K636= DE2CC:?8 q6EEJ s2G:D D6E 😕 2?E636==F> }6H ~C=62?D 5FC:?8 E96 >:5`g__D[ H9:49 x 42?E 96=A E9:?<:?8 E@52JD A6@A=6 @7 E96 $@FE9 36=:6G6 H2D 2 E:>6 H96? p>6C:42 H2D 8C62E[ C6>:?565 >6 @7 E96 D:EF2E:@? H6 2C6 6IA6C:6?4:?8 ?@H]k^Am

kAmx? E96 >@G:6[ 2 5625=J @FE3C62< @7 J6==@H ;24< W76G6CX 92D DH6AE E96 4:EJ 2?5 :E :D 36:?8 7@F89E H:E9 42??@? 2?5 D>@<6 :?DE625 @7 D6?D:3=6 >62DFC6D =:<6 D4:6?E:7:4 AC@@7 @7 5C2:?:?8 DH2>AD 😀 5:D>:DD65] %96J C6D@CE E@ 5C2DE:4 >62DFC6D =:<6 E96 D:4< 2C6 E@ 36 BF2C2?E:?65 E@ 2 =6A6C 4@=@?J[ 2?5 A6@A=6 H9@ ECJ E@ 6D42A6 E96 4:EJ F?56C BF2C2?E:?6 2C6 D9@E] $66:?8 E96 H28@?=@25D @7 E96 5625 2?5 D:4< 36:?8 42CC:65 @77 E@ {2K2CFD xD=2?5 H2D E@F49:?8 2?5 >256 >6 E92?<7F= H6 5@?E 92G6 E@ 8@ E9C@F89 2 E:>6 =:<6 E92E]k^Am

kAm%:>6D 2C6 567:?:E6=J 5:776C6?E[ 3FE :E 92D 2 46CE2:? C9JE9> @7 9@H 9:DE@CJ 😕 2 DEC2?86 H2J C6A62ED :ED6=7] tG6? E96 E2=< :? E96 7:=> 3J E96 D@FE96C? 86?E=6>6? 23@FE 9@H E96 ?@CE96C? 23@=:E:@?:DED 282:?DE D=2G6CJ H6C6 ECJ:?8 E@ 492?86 E96:C H2J @7 =:76 H2D <66?=J D:>:=2C] xC@?:4[ E9@F89[ H2D D66:?8 E96 ?68C@ D=2G6D H9@ H6C6 42CCJ:?8 @77 E96 3@5:6D H62C:?8 7246 >2DA:2? :E D66>65]k^Am

kAm%92?<7F==J[ E96 DE@CJ 925 D@>6H92E @7 2 92AAJ 2?5 >@C2= 6?5:?8 @7 9F>2? 42C:?8 2?5 D24C:7:46 E92E 6?565 H:E9 7:C6] |2J36 E96C6D AC@A964J :?G@=G65[ 2?5 >2J36 H96? E9:D 4C:D:D H6 2C6 😕 😀 @G6C[ E96C6 H:== 36 D2=G2E:@? 2?5 2 ?6H 52J 7@C E96 4@F?ECJ]k^Am

kAms2G:5 z2H[ {2<6 y24

kAm~?6 7=28 😀 6?@F89k^Am

kAmx? C6DA@?D6 E@ |D] (C:89ED 42== 7@C s@H E@ 7=J 2 7=28 7@C E96 =:76DEJ=6D @7 E96 A6@A=6[ x C6DA64E7F==J DF3>:E E96J 2=C625J 5@ 2?5 :ED ~=5 v=@CJ] (:E9 ;FDE E9@D6 E9C66 4@=@CD[ `b DEC:A6D 2?5 d_ DE2CD[ :E C6AC6D6?ED 6G6CJE9:?8 2?5 6G6CJ@?6 8@@5 2?5 325 😕 E9:D 4@F?ECJ]k^Am

kAmuC2?<=J[ H6 5@?E ?665 2?@E96C 7=28 E@ C6AC6D6?E E9:D 4@F?ECJ @C E9:D A6@A=6]k^Am

kAmy@9? |:=?6C[ q2J r:EJk^Am

Read the rest here:

Letters to the editor for Aug. 4, 2020 | Opinion | thefacts.com - Brazosport Facts

Rivera, Krueger, Treyger to Host COVID-19 Conversation

Tonight, Councilmembers Carlina Rivera (D) and Mark Treyger (D-Brooklyn) and State Senator Liz Krueger (D-Upper East Side, Lenox Hill) will be hosting a virtual conversation on issues pertaining to COVID-19.

Rivera and Treyger will begin by discussing the risks and challenges of reopening our schools. Then, Krueger will go over the 2020 Census, particularly the need to increase response rates from Manhattans East Side.

The event will take place tonight at 7:30 p.m. at facebook.com/councilwomancarlinarivera.

Yesterday, Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) announced an expansion of the citywide Food For Heroes program to deliver meals to workers at non-profit nursing homes and Department of Sanitation garages.

The Food For Heroes program launched last April to support New Yorks frontline workers during the pandemic by delivering them pre-made lunches. By the end of its first month, it had delivered 75,000 meals to the workers at Elmhurst Hospital. In later months, it expanded its reach towards staff at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, as well as hotels housing out-of-state medical workers who were self-isolating to protect their loved ones.

With this new initiative, the program plans to deliver 71,000 meals to nursing home and sanitation workers.

New Yorkers on the frontline of the crisis are working around the clock to take care of our families, neighbors and friends, saidde Blasio. Their effort has knitted this city together in our time of need, and well take every chance big and small to thank them for their service.

Tomorrow, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan, Brooklyn), Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, will hold a hearing on the predicted health and economic impacts of climate change over the next century.

The Committee will hear from environmental expert Drew Shindell, who will share future projections for climate change-related premature deaths in the United States. Among the other experts slated to testify are Michael Shellenberger, the founder and president of Environmental Progress, and Michael Greenstone, an expert who recently released significant findings on the social cost of carbon.

The hearing will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. and will be livestreamed here.

Yesterday, the House approved two amendments from U.S. Rep. Nydia Velzquez (D-LES, Brooklyn, Queens) aimed at preventing political interference in scientific research.

The first amendment prevents federal funding from being used to reject grant applications that include the words vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based or science-based. The second protects funding applications from rejection based on the usage of the term sea level rise.

Our nation needs to be prepared for an overall increase in climate-related disasters, said Velzquez.We saw firsthand through Hurricane Sandy what sort of destruction can be brought upon New Yorks shores. Curtailing research in this area would mean our coastal cities will be less prepared for rising sea levels brought on by a warming climate, putting millions of American lives at risk. We must not let our scientific research be hijacked by Donald Trump and his climate denying allies.

Please follow and like us:

View original post here:

MANH Lawmakers on the Move, Aug. 4, 2020 - New York County Politics