Speaker Johnson, We, the people of New York City, urge you to rein in NYPD spying and support passage of The Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (“POST”) Act. As the leader of the Council, you’ve constantly acted as a champion for communities in need. We urge you to do so once again and ensure the POST Act is enacted this year by calling for a vote.

Nominate Kamala Harris Vice President.

Pivot Sac and all of our partners are asking the SETA Governing Board to approve our contract for 2021-22. Please PROVIDE comments at the REGULAR MEETING OF THE SETA GOVERNING BOARD On THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2021 at 10 AM (ITEM III-B – 3 – ACTION)! ISSUE: WE ASK THE PUBLIC TO OBJECT TO THE SETA RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE THE FRUITRIDGE CAREER CENTER LOCATED IN OAK PARK. LOCATION: Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81181985908?pwd=VWRIVjVOQStTTW16NHVKcXAxMmdFQT09 To send an email before June 3rd, email Nancy Hogan at [email protected] OR email [email protected] and we will send them to Nancy. PLEASE SHARE THIS PETITION ON FACEBOOK AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS!

There needs to be an alternative options for children in the Luzerne County Head Start Program. As of September 12,2023 when speaking with the nutrition specialist for the center it was brought to my attention that there were no options other than what is on their menu. Packed lunches are not allowed. No food or drink from home. No changes can be made to the menu unless a child has food allergy or religious reasons

Make Swimming An Educational Standard--Teach Every Child to Swim by Age 6. as they do in England, Japan, Iceland and Holland. This will reverse the tide of systemic racism.

We urge you to subpoena Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to testify about Supreme Court ethics scandals now.

We, the undersigned, are requesting a 24/7 alternative emergency response program be established countywide in Santa Cruz. This program will consist of mobile crisis response vans staffed by a medical professional and a crisis counselor, dispatched through 911, modeled after the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) program operating in Springfield and Eugene, Oregon. Established in 1989 in Eugene, Oregon, CAHOOTS serves as a community-based public safety system providing first response to nonviolent crises. CAHOOTS mobilizes two-person teams--a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis counselor trained and experienced in the mental health field--to respond to non-violent mental health and social service-related crisis calls, including those related to houselessness, substance abuse, suicide prevention, and interpersonal conflicts. CAHOOTS teams are unarmed and provide services such as crisis de-escalation, medical evaluation and non-emergency treatment, conflict mediation, welfare checks, and transportation to other services, all at no cost to clients. CAHOOTS has also partnered with a local food bank to serve as a mobile pantry. Last year, CAHOOTS diverted about 20% of calls that would otherwise have been handled by police or emergency medical services on only 2% of the police budget, saving the city of Eugene approximately $8.5 million in public safety spending and $14 million in emergency room and ambulance costs.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is referred to as the Magna Carta of environmental law. In the process of stripping the executive branch's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) of its authority to implement NEPA, you have directed it to provide guidance to agencies as they develop their own implementation processes. That guidance tells agencies they do not have to consider the cumulative impacts of a proposed project, instructs them not to consider environmental justice, and gives them the ability to determine whether a proposal warrants a review and, by extension, an opportunity for the public to weigh in on projects that may impact them directly. Don't gut our bedrock environmental law.

Title IV-E of the Social Security Act provides federal funding to states for the care of children in foster care and for preventive services aimed at keeping families together. While the program has its merits, there are several reasons why it may not be appropriate in its current form and could benefit from repeal or reform to better serve families rather than states. Here are some key points: 1. **Incentivizes Foster Care Over Prevention**: Title IV-E funding primarily supports the foster care system, which can create a financial incentive for states to place children in foster care rather than invest in preventive services that could keep families together. This can lead to unnecessary family separations and a focus on reactive rather than proactive solutions. 2. **Limited Flexibility for States**: The program has strict eligibility requirements and guidelines that may not align with the unique needs of individual families or communities. This lack of flexibility can hinder states' ability to tailor services to meet the specific needs of families, leading to ineffective interventions. 3. **Focus on Compliance Over Outcomes**: The emphasis on meeting federal compliance requirements can divert attention from achieving positive outcomes for children and families. States may prioritize meeting bureaucratic standards over implementing effective, evidence-based practices that truly support families. 4. **Resource Allocation Issues**: Title IV-E funding can lead to disparities in resource allocation among states. States with more resources or better administrative capabilities may benefit disproportionately, while those with fewer resources struggle to access the funding necessary to support their families effectively. 5. **Administrative Burden**: The complexity of the Title IV-E program can create significant administrative burdens for states, diverting resources away from direct services to families. This can result in delays in service delivery and a lack of support for families in need. 6. **Lack of Focus on Family Preservation**: The current structure of Title IV-E funding may not adequately prioritize family preservation and reunification efforts. Reforming the program to emphasize these goals could lead to better outcomes for children and families. 7. **Potential for Misalignment with State Priorities**: The goals of Title IV-E may not always align with the priorities of individual states, leading to a disconnect between federal funding and local needs. This misalignment can result in ineffective use of resources and frustration among state officials and families. 8. **Stigmatization of Families**: The focus on foster care can contribute to the stigmatization of families involved in the child welfare system. Reforming Title IV-E to prioritize support for families could help reduce this stigma and promote a more positive narrative around family support. 9. **Limited Support for Non-Traditional Families**: Title IV-E funding may not adequately address the needs of non-traditional families, such as kinship caregivers or families involved in the child welfare system due to economic hardship. Reforming the program to be more inclusive could better support diverse family structures. 10. **Need for Holistic Approaches**: The current program may not adequately address the broader social determinants of family stability, such as housing, employment, and mental health services. A reformed Title IV-E could integrate these elements to provide more comprehensive support for families. In conclusion, while Title IV-E funding plays a critical role in the child welfare system, its current structure may not effectively support families. Repealing or reforming the program to prioritize family preservation, flexibility, and holistic support could lead to better outcomes for children and families in need.

Marriage Equality and Defending Targets of Discrimination