Monday, October 6, 2025
spot_img
spot_img
Home Blog Page 451

With New Legal Authority, County Takes Next Steps Toward Returning Bruce’s Beach

SAN PEDRO—With new legal authority granted by a recently passed State law, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Oct. 5, took the first official steps toward returning the property known as Bruce’s Beach to the descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce.

“The Governor signing SB 796 was a historic and pivotal moment in our effort to return Bruce’s Beach, but let’s be clear, that bill did not actually transfer the land,” said Supervisor Janice Hahn. “That is the soul responsibility of the county, and specifically, the responsibility of this Board.”

Sup. Hahn said her goal over the next several months will be to transfer this property in a way that not only works for the Bruce family, but is a model that other local governments can follow. Hahn said that returning Bruce’s Beach can and should set a precedent for the nation and all eyes will be on Los Angeles County as this work gets underway.

The motion, authored by Hahn and co-authored by Supervisor Holly Mitchell and approved unanimously today, instructs the County Chief Executive Office to do three things:

Coordinate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation to receive the amended deed (in line with SB 796). (Note: The State has until the end of 2021 to amend the deed)

Prepare and present to the Board the resolution of acceptance for the amended deed upon receipt

Pursue an expeditious process in determining legal heirship, in cooperation with the Treasurer and Tax Collector’s Public Administrator, in order to identify and vet potential claimants and report back to the Board when the vetting process is concluded.

After legal heirs are confirmed, the county can enter official discussions with the family to determine how best to transfer the property.

Vaccination Verification Requirements List of Dates; Residents Encouraged to Get Fully Vaccinated Ahead of Holidays

Multiple vaccination verification requirements now affect Los Angeles County residents and workers. As of Sept. 20, proof of vaccination status or a negative test result at indoor events in L.A. County with more than 1,000 attendees is required.

Sept. 30 was the deadline for healthcare and homecare workers across L.A. County to be fully vaccinated, while L.A. County employees had until Oct. 1 and L.A. City employees had until today, Oct. 5.

On Oct. 7, proof of full vaccination or a negative test result will be required to enter outdoor mega events, and proof of at least one dose of the vaccine will be required to enter or work in indoor portions of bars, lounges, nightclubs, breweries, wineries, and distilleries in L.A. County.

On Nov. 4, bars and similar establishments throughout L.A. County will be required to verify full vaccination of all patrons and employees prior to entry to indoor portions of their establishments.

To help businesses through all stages of implementation, which includes an overview of vaccination and testing requirements, Public Health created toolkits that are available online, at: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/business-verification.htm

Under a state order, K-12 school staff across the county are required to be vaccinated by Oct. 15 or test weekly. LAUSD students participating in extracurricular activities must be fully vaccinated by Oct. 31, and Culver City students are required to be vaccinated by Nov. 19. All LAUSD students 12 and over must be fully vaccinated by Dec. 19.

The week of Sept. 27, Gov. Newsom announced the state’s plan to require COVID-19 vaccination of all students and staff at private and public schools statewide as a condition of in-person attendance. The requirement will be effective for each student beginning the term following full FDA approval of the vaccine for their grade span, beginning with students in grades 7 through 12, followed by students in grades K through 6. Depending on the timing of approvals, this likely means the requirement will go into effect beginning either Jan. 1 or July 1 of 2022. There are also federal requirements, including President Biden’s executive order requiring federal workers to be fully vaccinated by Nov.22.

Helping organizations and businesses comply with targeted vaccination requirements over the next few months will be a focus for Public Health teams. Over the course of the pandemic, the county has seen high rates of compliance with other safety measures, and anticipates similar cooperation to work together to add the additional powerful protection of vaccinations for workers, customers, students, and families.

Visit: www.VaccinateLACounty.com (English) and www.VacunateLosAngeles.com (Spanish) to find a vaccination site near you, make an appointment at vaccination sites, and much more. If you don’t have internet access, can’t use a computer, or you’re over 65, you can call 1-833-540-0473 for help.

Details: www.publichealth.lacounty.gov.

Gov. Newsom Discusses Emergency Response to Southern California Oil Spill

HUNTINGTON BEACH – On Oct. 5, Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled to Bolsa Chica State Beach for a briefing by U.S. Coast Guard, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and California Natural Resources Agency officials on the emergency response to the oil spill off the coast of Huntington Beach.

Gov. Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency in Orange County Oct. 5, to support the urgent work underway to protect public health and the environment from the spill, which originated in federal waters.

At the Governor’s direction, the state has deployed personnel from the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to the incident command in Long Beach to closely coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard, local agencies and responsible parties on the response, cleanup and mitigation of the oil spill. In addition, agencies from across the administration are on the ground actively supporting various elements of the response, including staff from California State Parks, California Volunteers, California State Lands Commission, CAL FIRE and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, among others.

Limited Production Value Doesn’t Prevent “Angels in America” from Shining

Tom Stoppard may have written the four or five greatest plays of the last half-century, but for cultural significance there’s no topping Tony Kushner’s Angels in America — and the fact that each of its two parts, 1993’s Millennium Approaches and 1994’s Perestroika, won the Tony for Best Play that year only begins to tell the story. Ranging from New York to Utah and Heaven to the Kremlin, blending past and future and fact/fiction/fantasy, Angels is an epic journey of people, phantoms, and (of course) angels coming together in shifting combinations to explore how we lose and find ourselves as the old order gives way to the new. Life and death. Love and politics. Sin and salvation. Disease and regeneration. Kushner’s magnum opus — heartbreaking, hilarious, pithy without being pretentious, socially conscious without being didactic, and never, ever dull despite a combined runtime of somewhere around six hours — represents one of those rare instances where acause célèbre completely lives up to the hype.

Excited as I was to find that my first trip to Long Beach Playhouse in nearly two years would be to see Millennium Approaches, I was also wary. The problem for any theatre company taking on such a great and important piece is simple: there’s a lot of room to fall short. Tony Kushner did his job — you better do yours. Making me warier still was that they were attempting to stage this grand work not on their main stage but in their smaller, less functional upstairs space.

Fortunately, the combination of meticulous direction and a very strong cast easily overcomes the production’s built-in limitations, providing a fine showcase for one of the best plays you’re ever going to see.

The year is 1985, and Roy Cohn (Noah Wagner), a powerbroker ever since he made his bones under Joseph McCarthy during the “Red Scare,” has groomed young Joe Pitt (Brian Patrick Williams) to become an important cog in the conservative political machinery that is coming to dominate the United States. But they’ve both got an inconvenient secret: they’re closeted homosexuals. Worse still, Cohn is about to be diagnosed with HIV, while Joe, a Mormon transplant from Salt Lake City, has a pill-popping shut-in of a wife (Harper, played by Allison Lynn Adams) increasingly given to elaborate hallucinations. Meanwhile, elsewhere in NYC is another couple: Louis (Michael Mullen), a word processor in the court building where Joe works, and Prior Walter (Christian Jordan Skinner), who is about to reveal to that he has AIDS.

Over the ensuing three hours so much ground is covered — in terms of both plot and theme —that it’s hard to believe only three additional actors (Richard Martinez, Lisa J. Salas, and Alison Boole) are involved. But Kushner’s carefully assigned doubling expands the scope of what’s typically possible for such a small cast…provided the actors are up to the task.

That’s no problem here. As Cohn, Noah Wagner is biting and ferocious, while he’s delightfully jovial in his turn as one of Prior’s ancestors. As a more distant ancestor, Brian Patrick Williams is so transformed — and funny — that you might not pick him out as the same guy playing the tormented Joe. It’s like that all down the line, with every actor playing two or three roles.

Director Ryan Holihan has coached his cast perfectly. Despite dialog that’s often dense and imparts meaning at every turn, the actors always know what they and their castmates are saying, hitting all the beats and making it conversational rather than recited. Alison Lynn Adams truly lives Harper’s mania, and Richard Martinez manages his primary character (Belize, an ex-ex-drag queen and friend to Prior through thick and thin) with a perfect balance of humorous flamboyance and thoughtfulness. And as Louis, Michael Mullen delivers a ponderous (i.e., intentionally so on Kushner’s part) ramble so convincingly that you think he must be improvising.

Holihan has done solid blocking work in a play that is meant to employ minimal scenery and rapid scene shifts sans blackouts. (Per Kushner’s directive, Angels in America is “an actor-driven event.”) And even beyond what is specified in the stage directions, Holihan has found his own little ways to create and further parallels between scenes and characters. For example, initially placing Cohn offstage while his doctor provides a primer on AIDS creates a neat echo of the play’s opening scene that Kushner didn’t think of but would certainly approve.

The only way in which Long Beach Playhouse comes up short is regarding what Kushner calls the play’s “moments of magic,” which should be “thoroughly amazing” even if “the wires show.” In these moments, too often shortcomings in the sound and lighting design fail to transport us just when we need to be transported. Hopefully Holihan and co. will come up with better strategies for attacking such problems (difficult ones, considering the limitations of the Playhouse grid) when they take on Part Two: Perestroika next season, which calls for more protracted magic moments.

None of this, however, truly detracts from the exploratory voyage undertaken in Millennium Approaches. As Louis says, “[I]t should be the questions and shape of a life, its total complexity gathered, arranged and considered, which matters in the end.” With a sure hand on the tiller and able seamanship, Long Beach Playhouse is on course for the promised land.

Long Beach Playhouse presents Angels in America, Part One: Millennium Approaches:
When: Friday–Saturday 8:00 p.m. and Sunday 2:00 p.m. through October 30.
Address: 5021 E. Anaheim St. Long Beach
Cost: $14 to $24.
Details: For tix or more info, call (562) 494-1014 or visit LBplayhouse.org.
COVID safety protocols include mandatory masking throughout the duration (three hours, with two intermissions), plus proof of vaccination or a negative test result within the prior 48 hours.

What They’re Saying: Education and Legislative Leaders Support Announcement of COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements for Schools

SACRAMENTO – Education and public health leaders in California and throughout the country applauded Governor Newsom’s announcement that the state plans to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the list of vaccinations required to attend school in-person when the vaccine receives full approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for middle and high school grades, making California the first state in the nation to implement such a measure. The measure follows California’s other first-in-the-nation school masking and staff vaccination measures, measures that have helped California to maintain the lowest case rate in the entire country. California is currently the only state to advance to the CDC’s ‘moderate’ COVID transmission category.

Here’s what education and public health leaders said, with edits for clarity and length, about the Governor’s first-in-the-nation announcement:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President: “I agree with what Gov. Newsom did in California. People need to realize that having a vaccine requirement for schools is not a new, novel thing that is very peculiar or specific to COVID-19. We’ve been doing this for decades.”

California State Parent Teacher Association President Carol Green: “California State PTA supports the use of vaccines to protect the health and safety of children and families across California. The state of California has required student vaccinations in public schools for years and PTA has long-held positions on vaccine requirements to protect our most vulnerable children.

“Vaccination is an important tool to ensure our schools remain open for in-person instruction while protecting the health and safety of our students, staff, and entire communities.”

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten: “@CFTunion ready to work with Gov. Newsom on Covid vaccines for children and staff including the mandating of vaccines (with appropriate exemptions) the semester following full authorization. Good step by @GavinNewsom.”

California Teachers Association President E. Toby Boyd: “Teaching and learning are most effective in person, and the COVID-19 vaccine is a proven measure to prevent life threatening illness, keeping schools safe and open for in-person instruction, and will get us closer to being able to put this devastating pandemic behind us. As the science advances and COVID vaccines are approved for younger students, this is the next step toward ensuring the health and safety of our schools and communities consistent with other vaccine requirements in schools.”

California Federation of Teachers President Jeff Freitas: “CFT believes that vaccines are essential to ensuring that our students, school workers, and communities are safe. We know that in-person instruction is best for our students, and that vaccines are the most important safeguard to prevent serious illness from COVID-19 infection.”

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond: “I have no doubt that today’s announcement by the Governor will lead to safer schools and safer communities. I look forward to working with the Governor, his administration, school districts, and school communities across the state to implement this important change.

“In the coming weeks, I will be launching a public service campaign to expand vaccination rates across the state. California is already leading the way in combatting this virus, with one of the lowest COVID-19 test positivity rates in the country; the safety measures we take collectively now in our schools will be pivotal to how our communities emerge from the pandemic, and this is especially true for our most vulnerable communities.”

California School Boards Association President Dr. Susan Heredia: “The California Schools Boards Association welcomes the state’s decision to use its longstanding legal authority to add COVID-19 inoculations to the vaccine requirements. CSBA endorses approaches to COVID-19 mitigation that are supported by data and science and that maximize the safety of students and staff — principles that are reflected in the new mandate. The patchwork of different methods for COVID-19 mitigation at the local level was not the most effective approach for this particular crisis. California requires a more comprehensive strategy that frees local school boards from the need to act as de facto public health officials. Those decisions are better left to people at the state level who are designated to perform public health functions. In addition, a statewide standard for student vaccinations may help defuse some of the unlawful behavior directed at school board trustees by those who oppose local mandates.”

California School Employees Association President Matthew “Shane” Dishman: “As classified staff, we have dedicated our careers to caring for our students by keeping them safe, fed and learning. I can think of no better way to keep students and staff safe than by ensuring every eligible person on campus is vaccinated. Broad vaccination is the only way to get us out of this pandemic so we can ensure every student can learn in person and have the best educational opportunities possible.”

San Diego Unified School District President Richard Barerra: “We think that it is important to set a standard across the state…that all students public and private schools will be required to receive the vaccination at the point they’re eligible and it certainly builds on the action not only our district has taken, but several other districts in CA have already taken.”

California Medical Association President Peter N. Bretan, Jr., M.D.: “CMA strongly supports Gov. Newsom’s common-sense action to protect our students, teachers and school staff. This is not a new idea. We already require vaccines against several known deadly diseases before students can enroll in schools. The Newsom Administration is simply extending existing public health protections to cover this new disease, which has caused so much pain and suffering across our state, our nation and the entire globe over the last 18 months. We are proud that California continues to put public health first, and urge all who are eligible to get their COVID-19 vaccines as soon as possible so we can keep each other safe.”

Kaiser Permanente Chair and Chief Executive Officer Greg A. Adams: “Kaiser Permanente supports California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s strong and timely action to protect students, faculty, and staff who have returned to in-person learning by requiring eligible students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to attend schools for in-person instruction, once approved by the Food and Drug Administration, beginning in 2022. This is an important step that will protect students and school employees across the state who have returned to full, in-person instruction.”

Here’s what education and public health leaders have said about vaccine requirements for schools:

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona: “I wholeheartedly support [a school vaccine mandate]. It’s the best tool that we have to safely reopen schools and keep them open. We don’t want to have the yo-yo effect that many districts had last year, and we can prevent that by getting vaccinated.”

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra: “I am very supportive, both personally and as secretary of health and human services of a school district, of a local jurisdiction, of a governor, that says, ‘It is time to keep kids in school safe, and we will, therefore, move to requiring masks and vaccination.’ The federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction to tell schools what to do.”

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy: “The vaccine could make a big difference for the health of our kids and for the peace of mind of parents everywhere. The COVID-19 vaccines are FDA’s top priority, and they know the urgency with which our children need a vaccine.”

Ashish Jha, Dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health: “Are we willing to use the tools we have to keep schools open? Pretty straightforward: vaccines for everyone eligible, ventilation and filtration, regular testing, indoor masking while community transmission is high, and avoiding crowding. Let’s do it.”

Companies to Pay for Cleanup of Groundwater at Montrose Superfund Site Following Settlement

WASHINGTON – On Sept. 30, 2021, three settlement agreements were approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Under the agreements, Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, Bayer CropScience Inc., TFCF America Inc., and Stauffer Management Company LLC have agreed to pay $77.6 million for cleanup of contaminated groundwater at the Montrose Chemical Corp. Superfund and the Del Amo Superfund Sites in Los Angeles County, California.

The companies will also investigate potential contamination of the historic stormwater pathway leading from the Montrose Superfund Site, south of Torrance Boulevard. Another company, JCI Jones Chemicals Inc. will participate in the groundwater cleanup.

The settlements not only provide for cleanup and investigation, but also collectively resolve active litigation in a case that has been pending for more than 30 years under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund). From 1947 to 1982, Montrose operated the U.S.’s largest manufacturing plant for the pesticide DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane).

The settlements require the companies to pay for and implement cleanup remedies and perform an investigation with federal and state oversight. The companies will also reimburse EPA more than $8 million and California DTSC more than $450,000 for costs already incurred.

Each settlement addresses specific activity to address cleanup of the sites:

The first settlement requires pumping and treating the groundwater to federal and state cleanup standards and then reinjecting the treated water back into the ground.

The second settlement will bring about treatment of the soil to address historical releases that are an ongoing source of groundwater contamination. Air monitoring will be performed to ensure there are no impacts to the surrounding community.

The third settlement requires investigation of potential contaminant releases in the historic stormwater pathway leading from the Montrose Superfund Site, south of Torrance Boulevard. This settlement will be used to determine if there is contamination in the pathway that may require cleanup.

The settlements are memorialized in three consent decrees.

Details: For information on these Superfund sites, visit the Del Amo Los Angeles, CA Superfund site profile web page at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0901293

And the Montrose Chemical Corp. Torrance, CA Superfund site profile web page at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0901293.

 

BLM Long Beach Statement on Violence in our School District

 

Black Lives Matter Long Beach on Oct. 1, issued the following statement supported by students, parents, community organizations and neighboring stakeholders in Los Angeles, in the wake of the shooting by a School Safety Officer at Millikan High School.

On Monday September 27th, Manuela (Mona) Rodriquez, age 18, was shot by a Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) School Safety Officer (SSO) in the parking lot around the corner from Millikan High School.

The incident was recorded by a student and broadcast by ABC Channel 7 News. The School Safety Officer was off-campus, and recklessly discharged his firearm into a car as it was driving away. Mona was critically injured in the backseat. She is now hospitalized and on life support.

In May 2020, after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis, racial reckoning occurred across the country. We met on Zoom with our LBUSD superintendent Dr. Jill Baker and demanded that LBPD officers and SSOs be removed from schools, because they also carry guns that could be potentially harmful to students. Dr. Baker and the board of education responded by removing the 3 LBPD officers that were stationed at LB high schools. However, the SSOs are still on campus with punitive policies which allow for guns, batons, and other weapons to be used on students, are still in place.

And here we are one year later, with a young woman, 18 years old, near death at the hands of an SSO. SSOs patrol many of the middle and high schools in Long Beach, armed with guns, batons and other weapons. According to the district, “SSO staff carry weapons and are allowed to use them on combative students”. Why would a school find it necessary to physically harm students with one of these weapons?

Research gathered for BLMLBC Community Briefing, shows salaries of these campus officers for a combined total of $1,429,110. – $1,678,251. What would school safety look like if we reinvested some of these funds into school counselors and other forms of care that actually keep our students and schools safe?

The physical and psychological safety of over 68,000 LBUSD students are in clear jeopardy. Black and Latinx parents wonder if their child will come home safely at the end of each school day. They are attacked on public city buses on their way home from school, and harmed with weapons by School Safety Officers on or off campus. When will this insanity end? Black Lives Matter Long Beach, community members, and stakeholders in the city are demanding that LBUSD remove all weapons that harm and potentially kill a student, staff, teacher, or family member on campus. We want the district to implement a higher level of care to all students and their families.

Enough is enough and we are demanding systemic changes included but not limited to:

  1. All guns be removed from any campus employee.
  2. All weapons such as batons, clubs, pepper spray, etc., be removed from School Safety Officers.
  3. Additional training given to staff to deescalate a difficult situation.
  4. Review and remove all punitive punishment, and replace it with restorative practices such as: more counselors, social workers, nurses and opportunities for arts and cultural activities.
  1. Town Hall meetings instituted at each school site to hear from students and parents with action steps to follow.
  1. Mental health resources on every school website to be a resource for students, teachers, staff and parents/guardians.

It is our duty to fight for freedom. It is our duty to win.

 

Signed by: Black Lives Matter Long Beach & community stakeholders

Dr. Kim Tabari, LBUSD parent, Black Parents/Guardians Circle, LB Education Connection & BLMLB

Melissa Morgan, LBUSD parent & BLM Long Beach

Audrena Redmond, Co-Founder of BLM Long Beach

Dawn Modkins, Co-Founder of BLM Long Beach

Sheila Bates, BLM Long Beach

Kamilah Holmes, BLM Long Beach

James Mark, H.O.O.D Council & BLM Long Beach

Reena Hajat Carroll, MSW; Executive Director, California Conference for Equality and Justice

Marianne Drummond, Wilson High School Teacher

Jenn Stuart, Community member

Roean Stuart, Community member

Gaby Hernandez, Executive Director, Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition

Christopher Covington, Statewide Lead Organizer (LB Organizer) Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network

Geoffrey Windor & Ginna Brelsford, Co-Executive Directors, Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network

Nicole Gon Ochi, Senior Attorney, Public Advocates

Mariela Salgado, Parks Commissioner, LBUSD Parent, & LB Education Connection

Martha Cota, Latinos In Action & LB Education Connection

Lilia Ocampo, LBUSD Parent & LB Education Connection

Michael Ball, Children’s Defense Fund-CA

Angelica Salazar, Children’s Defense Fund-CA

Jerlene Tatum, LBUSD Parent & Black Parents/Guardians Circle

Children’s Defense Fund-CA

The Strategy Center and Bus Riders Union

Omar Cardenas, Parent and Organizing Director (Long Beach), Californians for Justice

Long Beach Forward

Youth Leadership Institute

Jenny Chheang,LBUSD parent and community member.

Aarti Harper, LBUSD parent

Susan McKibben, LBUSD parent

Shelly Walther, LBUSD parent and alumni

Mary Ellen Mitchell, LB community member

Kayleigh Levitt, Volunteer CAT911LB

Alyssa Gutierrez, Chair, LB Human Relations Commission

Lian Cheun, Parent & KGA Executive Director

Daniel Castro, Democratic Socialist of America – LB Steering Committee

Kailee Caruso District 3 Parent at Lowell Elementary (PTA Board, School Site Council, DEI Committee)

Kenny Allen, Sunrise Movement Long Beach

Carlos Ovalle, People of Long Beach

Iyatunde Folayan, CAT911 Long Beach

Susana Sngiem, MSW, United Cambodian Community

Liz Ryan Murray, LBUSD, Parent

Bree Carlson, Community Member

Allister Baldwin, Community Member

Laverne Carlson, Community Member

Miles Murray, LBUSD Student

Marianna Clark-Igoudin, LBUSD Student

Daynna Rosales, LBUSD Student

Michael L. McCary, LBUSD Student

Burk Murray, LBUSD Parent

Ellen Hartwick, LBUSD Parent

Lily Gonzalez, LBUSD Student

Stephanie Park, LBUSD Parent

Jonathan Henry, LBUSD Parent

Viki Yamashida

Tu Quynh Tra, Educator

Ted Hollistor

Rev. Kyle Blake, Parent of LBUSD Student

Juan E. Ovalle, Community member

Showing Up for Racial Justice LB (SURJ)

Emilio Zapién, Youth Justice Coalition, South Central L.A.

Mau Trejo, Orange County Rapid Response Network (OCRRN)

Advancement Project California

Earthlodge Center for Transformation

Educated Men with Meaningful Messages

Filipino Migrant Center

Students for Quality Education Statewide

Emily Joelle, Community member and LBUSD staff member

Reclaim Our Schools Los Angeles.

United Teachers of Los Angeles

Brothers, Sons, Selves Coalition

Community Coalition

Brotherhood Crusade

Youth Justice Coalition

Social Justice Learning Institute

InnerCity Struggle

Khmer Girls in Action

East LA Weingart YMCA

Victor Leung, ACLU of Southern California

Student leaders, Youth Liberty Squad

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

 

Details: www.blmlbc.org

Gov. Newsom Vetoes Vote-By-Mail Law For Farmworkers

Capital & Main, 10/4/21

https://capitalandmain.com/gov-newsom-vetoes-union-vote-by-mail-bill-for-farmworkers

Almost before the farmworker voting rights march set out for Sacramento last week, their 217-mile pilgrimage was cut short by the Governor’s veto of the bill they supported.

The march sought to press Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign a bill that would have brought farmworker union elections into line with the voting process used in California general elections. Instead, the governor refused to allow changes in a 50-year old election process that workers say favors growers – changes that he has advocated for in general elections, like the recall vote he just overcame.

“Why was the absentee ballot process good for the Governor when he depended on it to defeat the recall, but not good for farmworkers?” asked Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers.

AB 616 would have made it easier for farmworkers to vote to unionize by allowing them to fill out and mail ballots as absentees, just as voters do in a general election. Under AB 616 a union could distribute ballots to workers at home, which they could mail back to California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board in envelopes that keep the vote confidential, just like voters can do in any political election.

Newsom, in a veto statement, said he “has worked tirelessly to protect and support workers across California.” However, he added, “this bill contains various inconsistencies and procedural issues related to the collection and review of ballot cards.” No specifics were given in the message, or beforehand to the union and the bill’s sponsors.

Presently, workers are forced to vote in polling places on the growers’ or company’s property. Voting by absentee would make it possible for farmworkers to cast their ballot away from foremen and anti-union consultants.

Currently, when workers want to organize a union, they have to sign cards that authorize the union to represent them. The union then presents them to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. If the Board decides a majority of the grower’s workers have signed, and other requirements have been met, it sets up a polling place on the company property. Workers have to cast their votes there, in favor or against the union.

Xico Garza and Paulina Rodriguez lead UFW members and supporters in a prayer to the four directions at the start of the march.

It is a very high-stress process. Before the vote growers often hire union busters to dissuade workers all day from joining up. Foremen can legally pull workers aside during work hours, giving each a one-on-one talk to pressure her or him to vote as the grower wants. Since the Supreme Court ruled in June (Cedar Point Nursey v. Hassid) union organizers can no longer go on a grower’s property during non-work time to counter false statements or threats.

Organizing a union in the face of these obstacles is hard and risky for workers. Over the years the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which administers California’s farmworker unionization law, has held hundreds of hearings. An endless parade of workers has testified to threats, firings and other illegal actions by growers and crew bosses – all intended to increase fear.

Just as voting by absentee ballot is easier and less stressful in a general election, voting at home would make it possible for farmworkers to cast their ballot away from the pressure. Under AB 616 a union could distribute ballots to workers at home, which they could then fill out and mail back to the board in envelopes that keep the vote confidential, just as anyone in California can do in a general election.

The Governor’s objections make little sense to the workers and their advocates. The existing process outlined in the Agricultural Labor Relations Act allows a union to request a list of employees by giving the board authorizations signed by 10% of the workforce. Then the union can either request an election on the grower’s property, as it can now, or it can distribute ballot cards to workers, allowing them to cast their vote at home. This is the same procedure that gave Biden his victory over Trump in many states, one that rightwing Republicans are now trying to outlaw in Texas and elsewhere.

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board must monitor the validity of the signatures on the ballot cards it receives, and must hold a hearing if there are accusations of chicanery. voter coercion or falsifying signatures is already illegal.

As farmworker advocates see it, Newsom’s veto is a self-serving bow to California’s $50 billion agricultural industry as he faces reelection next year and beyond that, he may run for the Oval Office – both of which need big-money donors. Among his anti-recall donors, along with unions, are tech moguls Eric Schmidt, Reed Hastings, Priscilla Chan and Jerry Yang, to whom unions are anathema.

As San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom did play an important role in helping hotel workers win their lockout and strike in 2004, but his labor record is more mixed than his veto message claims. Workers have no union in Newsom’s Plumpjack restaurant and Napa Valley winery. Business lobbyists were well represented at the lobbyist’s birthday party Newsom attended, maskless and indoors, at the swanky French Laundry restaurant at the height of the pandemic last November.

UFW President Teresa Romero and farmworker activist Lourdes Cardenas march in support of AB 616.

His misstep angered millions of locked-down Californians and helped put the recall petition on the ballot. Farmworkers were not invited, a fact the United Farm Workers dramatized last week in a protest of his veto outside the French Laundry.

In the weeks before Newsom fended off a recall on Sept. 15, UFW’s Romero had asked to meet with him to talk about the bill. He refused. “We didn’t want it to become an issue in the recall campaign, which farmworkers were committed to winning,” she said, “so we didn’t say anything publicly, even though we thought he should have been willing to hear our reasons for it.”

This summer and fall AB 616 easily passed the state Assembly and Senate, despite fierce opposition from growers. The California Chamber of Commerce called it a “job killer.” Presumably if workers organize more easily, a larger and stronger union might push wages up – not a prospect agricultural businesses favor.

Agribusiness has fought laws giving farmworkers a legal process for organizing unions since agricultural and domestic labor was excluded from the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Currently only California and Hawaii have state laws with a unionization process for farmworkers. One result is that less than one percent of farmworkers belong to unions today. In strengthening California’s law, therefore, AB 616 could help increase that percentage and inspire the spread of similar laws to other states.

After the recall election was over, however, Newsom continued to sit on AB 616. Finally the union and its supporters decided to start walking to Sacramento to demonstrate their commitment and ask him to sign it. The march was due to take 19 days, following in the footsteps of the original farmworker march to Sacramento in 1967, during the famous Delano grape strike that marked the beginnings of the UFW.

Senator Alex Padilla, appointed by Newsom to fill Vice-President Kamala Harris’s seat, supported the bill. “As Secretary of State,” he said in a written statement, “I was proud to support and implement changes in state law to make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote. Farm workers should have similar opportunities as they exercise their longstanding right to vote in a union representation [election].”

Voting rights for farmworkers can’t be taken for granted. They came with the passage of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 1975, after decades of conflict in California fields. Last week’s farmworker march sought to remind the governor of that history by starting in Farmersville, site of one of the key conflicts that led to the creation of the United Farm Workers union.

Xico Garza walks at the head of the march burning sage. UFW President Teresa Romero and activist Lourdes Cardenas walk behind him.

Pointing proudly to a silent man in a soft-brimmed hat walking beside her, Mari Perez said, “My father was part of that history. He stood up for us.” Marchers like Jose Perez started their peregrinacion, or pilgrimage, less than a mile from one of the most famous battles, the rent strike at the Linnell labor camp. “Voting rights and unions for farmworkers only came after a long struggle against poverty and powerlessness,” explained another marcher, Roberto DeLa Rosa, board chair of California Rural Legal Assistance.

In 1965 anger over racism and exploitation grew hot in Tulare County, and boiled over when farmworkers living at the Linnell labor camp in Farmersville decided to stop paying rent. Residents lived in shacks built for dust bowl migrants. They were so hot during the summer that families would salvage rugs from the dump, douse them with water, and spread them on the roof to cool off the rooms below. There were no separate showers for women. Gilbert Padilla, one of the strike organizers, called it “a very disgusting site.”

Camp residents won their strike and Padilla (now a revered veteran organizer) went on to help lead the Delano grape strike later that year. Voting rights came a decade after that — in 1965 farmworkers had no right to vote for a union in the fields. Even in general elections voting procedures were restricted, and most farmworkers didn’t or couldn’t vote. The idea that you could register easily at the DMV, or that every voter would be mailed a ballot to send back at their convenience, would have seemed utopian.

Today those changes in general election procedures are the norm in California, intended to make voting as easy as possible, and to encourage the maximum turnout. Gov. Gavin Newsom owes his victory in the recent recall election at least in part to the increased turnout those changes made possible. Indeed, on Sept. 27, Newsom signed a bill to make mail-in ballots – a pandemic-era safety measure – permanent.

On Wednesday, Sept. 22, 25 workers and their supporters who’d agreed to walk the whole way gathered in a Farmersville church parking lot. After a prayer to the four directions, led by dancers Xico Garza and Paulina Rodriguez, and accompanied by dozens of supporters, the marchers set off. A few hours later the word came down – Newsom had vetoed the bill.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, the San Diego Assemblymember who authored AB 5 to end misclassification of gig workers, tweeted her disappointment at the veto of AB 616, which she cosponsored. “I’m truly devastated that @GavinNewsom vetoed the most important union organizing bill of the year. Denying Farmworkers the right to organize and join a union in the same manner we allow all public sector workers in CA to do so is abhorrent.”

“To me, the reasons he gave for the veto have no value,” Romero said.told Capital & Main. “He benefited from the voting choice Californians have to beat the recall. But he thinks farmworkers are not equal to him.”

 

More photos from the march: http://davidbaconrealitycheck.blogspot.com/2021/10/gov-newsom-vetoes-union-vote-by-mail.html

From San Pedro to DC, Tens of Thousands March to Defend Abortion Rights

In the greatest outpouring by supporters of woman’s right to choose in five decades, took to the streets to protest US Supreme Court’s decision to allow the recently passed anti-abortion law in Texas to take affect. Their message: “My Body, My Life. Not the Church, not the state, women shall decide their fate. Defend Abortion Rights.”

The Oct. 2 march and rally in downtown Los Angeles, from Pershing Square to City Hall, was one of the largest in the country with 7,500 participants from throughout LA County. The rally-goers were women, the young, and people of color.

Speakers included politicians, civil rights and women’s rights and health organizations, youth, attorneys and others.

Individuals this reporter spoke to confirmed that for many, this was their first demonstration ever and certainly since the pandemic began. There was an air of militancy and determination but unfortunately there was no future action called for, as people walked away the energy and determination dissipated.

San Pedro abortion rights rally on 25th and Western. About two dozen supporters of women’s right to privacy and abortion turned out on Oct. 2. Photo by Mitzi

One young woman, Jennifer Garcia, I spoke with explained that she thought a “national conference of all supporters for abortion rights is desperately needed in order to plan further actions after a democratic and open discussion. We cannot just wait for midterm elections. We need to act now since the Supreme Court will be taking on an even more important case in December. We know we have the power. We demonstrated it in 1973 and we can demonstrate it again.”

“I came for my daughter, for my sisters, my aunts, my mother,” Kelly Julian from La Habra told the Los Angeles Times. “I came for all women to support our right to choose what we do with our bodies.”

Called by the Women’s March, who’s 2017 protests involved nearly 4 million women right after Trump was inaugurated president, said in their website that demonstrations took place in more than 650 cities including half a dozen in Los Angeles County; from Beverly Hills to San Pedro.

Protests took place in all 50 states. A common theme was “Hands off my uterus. Our bodies, our choice. We will not go back.” Most signs were handmade with a tremendous variety of slogans confirming the groundswell of individual support for these actions, despite the fact that a coalition of 200 organizations was involved at the national level. Many young women carried signs that said “Not this again” attached to a clothes hanger, referring to the back-alley abortions that many women were forced to undergo prior to 1973.”

Oct. 2 abortion rights rally in San Pedro. Photo by Mitzi

In Washington, Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson, said the actions represent “a movement moment” for reproductive rights. “More than 80% of Americans believe that Roe should be the law of the land and yet, in state after state, these horrific restrictions and bans are continuing to further erode our ability to access our constitutional right.”

“I think what Texas has the potential to do is usher in a de facto end to Roe, because there are 25 other states that are looking quite closely at their ability to engage in copycat legislation, starting as early as the next legislative session in ’22. What we have with Mississippi, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that the Supreme Court will heart December 1. Jackson is the sole provider of abortion in Mississippi. This 15-week abortion ban is another clear violation of our constitutional right to an abortion.”

The Texas law being protested bans abortions after six weeks, which is when healthcare providers can detect the fetal heartbeat, but before most women know that they are pregnant. It is the strictest abortion law since the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe V Wade in 1973 and provides no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

Since 1973 right-wing antiabortionists, and Democratic and Republican politicians alike, have chipped away at women’s reproductive rights. First with the Hyde amendment that prevented any federal funding for abortions (supported by Senator Biden), to restrictions on time limits, multiple visit requirements and waiting periods, attacks on medical plans that pay for abortions, and other efforts, which means that today virtually no hospital in the country will perform an abortion. Hundreds of clinics have been shut down in the face of demonstrations by antiabortion, so-called pro-life groups.

The Texas law allows residents of any state to sue medical clinics, doctors, nurses, and people drive women to get an abortion for damages of up to $10,000. The Supreme Court upheld the law 5-4.

And more ominously in December, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from a Mississippi law that wants to ban abortions in that state after 15 weeks.

Over the weekend, a longtime physician in Texas revealed he has defied the law and provided an abortion in order to care for one of his patients. Dr. Alan Braid made the admission in an article for The Washington Post. He writes, “I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care. I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

Dr. Bhavik Kumar told Democracy Now “It’s Christian essentialism that’s taken over. And it’s not what the people want in Texas. The vast majority are supportive of abortion. But, unfortunately, the people in power are pushing their agenda forward… So, I think what we know from centuries of humanity is that people will always need access to abortion.”

I urge you to compare this article, on-the-spot news coverage to the minuscule 8 column inch snippet in the Oct. 2 edition of the Los Angeles Times about the march lifted solely from City News Service. Outside of La Opinion and a few alternative news media outlets, very little coverage was assigned to the mobilizing women and supporters in defense of abortion rights. What does that tell you? Send your comments to Mark.Friedman@randomlengthsnews.com.

Stop Calling the Military Budget a ‘Defense’ Budget

It’s bad enough that mainstream news outlets routinely call the Pentagon budget a “defense” budget. But the fact that progressives in Congress and even many antiwar activists also do the same is an indication of how deeply the mindsets of the nation’s warfare state are embedded in the political culture of the United States.

The misleading first name of the Defense Department doesn’t justify using “defense” as an adjective for its budget. On the contrary, the ubiquitous use of phrases like “defense budget” and “defense spending” — virtually always written with a lower-case “d”— reinforces the false notion that equates the USA’s humongous military operations with defense.

In the real world, the United States spends more money on its military than the next 10 countries all together. And most of those countries are military allies.

What about military bases in foreign countries? The U.S. currently has 750, while Russia has about two dozen and China has one. The author of the landmark book “Base Nation,” American University professor David Vine, just co-wrote a report that points out “the United States has at least three times as many overseas bases as all other countries combined.” Those U.S. bases abroad “cost taxpayers an estimated $55 billion annually.”

As this autumn began, Vine noted that President Biden is “perpetuating the United States’ endless wars” in nations including “Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Yemen” while escalating “war-like tensions with China with a military buildup with Australia and the UK.”

All this is being funded via a “defense” budget

Calling George Orwell.

As Orwell wrote in a 1946 essay, political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” In 2021, the hot air blowing at gale force through U.S. mass media is so continuous that we’re apt to scarcely give it a second thought. But the euphemisms would hardly mean anything to those in faraway countries for whom terrifying and lethal drone attacks and other components of U.S. air wars are about life and death rather than political language

You might consider the Pentagon’s Aug. 29 killing of 10 Afghan civilians including seven children with a drone attack to be a case of “respectable” murder, or negligent homicide, or mere “collateral damage.” Likewise, you could look at numbers like 244,124 — a credible low-end estimate of the number of civilians directly killed during the “war on terror” in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq — and consider them to be mere data points or representing individuals whose lives are as precious as yours.

But at any rate, from the vantage point of the United States, it’s farfetched to claim that the billions of dollars expended for ongoing warfare in several countries are in a budget that can be legitimately called “defense.”

Until 1947, the official name of the U.S. government’s central military agency was the War Department. After a two-year interim brand (with the clunky name National Military Establishment), it was renamed the Department of Defense in 1949. As it happened, that was the same year when Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” appeared, telling of an always-at-war totalitarian regime with doublespeak slogans that included “War Is Peace.”

Today, the Department of Defense remains an appropriately capitalized proper noun. But the department’s official name doesn’t make it true. To call its massive and escalating budget a “defense” budget is nothing less than internalized corruption of language that undermines our capacities to think clearly and talk straight. While such corroded language can’t be blamed for the existence of sloppy thinking and degraded discourse, it regularly facilitates sloppy thinking and degraded discourse.

Let’s blow away the linguistic fog. The Pentagon budget is not a “defense” budget.


Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.