We are sitting back and allowing our future, our youth, to go to prison when they have not had a chance to live a life or make real decisions that lead to their future and ours. It's our job to guide them, and it's the APD's job to inform us of where our children are and what they are up to when we are not looking; not to give them felony charges that affect the rest of their lives and ours, but to make a difference in their lives by telling the parents, watching their actions and coming up with healing solutions; not to give them gaping scars that mar their minds for the rest of their lives by placing them in a prison system with criminals to be their guides.

My name is Anisa Nanavati, and I am the North American Continental Coordinator of Earth Uprising, a youth-led climate justice movement. As youth, we will bear the greatest impacts of climate change, and we refuse to stay silent while our future is destroyed. We have unprecedented wildfires, droughts, flooding, and hurricanes devastating communities across the United States, and the are disproportionately affecting people of color. Presidential candidates must be challenged during the very first presidential debate to describe how they will decrease and reverse the impacts of climate change. We demand that Chris Wallace, Steve Scully, and Kristen Welker include a segment about climate change. The time for climate justice is now! Update: We won on the first presidential debate and Chris Wallace gave an 11 minute segment on climate change. We are now demanding that all presidential debates in 2020 have a segment on the climate crisis.

Let the USDA and Congress know you want them to quit listening to Big Agriculture lobbyists and keep fighting the good fight on behalf of all of us!

We, the undersigned residents, business owners, and public officials of Northampton, want to share with you our endorsement and steadfast enthusiasm for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) project #609286, known locally as Picture Main Street (https://northamptonma.gov/2547/Picture-Main-Street). We ask that you do everything within your means to see this exhaustively vetted vision become a reality as soon as possible. We ask this for the following reasons:

After the horrendous display of racism, bigotry, and white supremacy in Charlottesville, we, the citizens of the City of Norfolk, take a stand against white nationalism by removing one of its symbols, the Confederate monument. On top of a white, Vermont granite base stands a 15-foot figure of a Confederate soldier. The monument commemorates the last reunion of surviving Confederate soldiers and is found on Main Street in Downtown Norfolk. We, the Citizens of the City of Norfolk, want the Confederate monument removed from downtown Norfolk on Main Street. After it is removed, we suggest placing the Confederate monument in a museum where exhibits and conversations can occur in a thoughtful, informed manner. We recommend replacing the Confederate monument with a new monument to serve as a celebration racial and cultural diversity.

Dear JeffCo School Board Members, We are writing to formally request that the MOU regarding Alternative Education be returned to the table during the next negotiation session on May 8, 2025 with language requiring the proposed committee to make recommendations regarding the future of AECs to be brought forward to the bargaining teams. Students at AECs will be best served when AEC educators play a key role in drafting the vision for the future landscape of AECs in JeffCo, rather than educators’ voices simply being listened to after the new vision has already been designed. This MOU outlines a clear and reasonable timeline for planning, ensures meaningful decision-making power for key stakeholders—including elected educators, ESPs, and site administrators—and protects the ability of those who have dedicated their careers to alternative education to continue serving those roles. We want to ground this conversation in what truly matters: our students. We are fighting because we believe deeply in the life-changing work we do. It is no surprise to us that the AEC Landscape, as currently envisioned, will fail to serve the district’s most impacted students—because those who serve them were not meaningfully included in its design. We are not resistant to change. In fact, we welcome it—when it is collaborative, equitable, and rooted in the lived realities of our students. What we are asking is simple: that those who know our students best be treated as essential participants in shaping their future. What we heard when this plan was first brought to us in February was not ambiguous. Across schools, educators understood we were being presented with a nearly finalized plan that would soon be made public—a plan with significant implications for our programs that entirely lacked our input. If the message we received was a misunderstanding, it was a misunderstanding simultaneously held by every AEC principal. That alone should raise serious concerns about the quality, consistency, and credibility of district communication. Since then, the messaging has continued to shift, with no documentation offered to clarify what was originally communicated and why that message has changed. When we have asked how these changes were determined, we are told they were “data-driven.” However, the very limited data that has been made available does not support the proposed changes. In short, nothing about this rollout has inspired confidence in district leadership. To be clear: our trust has been fundamentally broken. Words alone can not repair this rift. We need a clear and binding commitment to prioritizing the voices of AEC educators in shaping the future of AECs in JeffCo. Without this, we cannot rebuild. To date, the district’s responses—a so-called “listening tour” with prescribed questions and the formation of a committee with no real decision-making power—have been perceived by us as performative and placatory, not as meaningful steps toward repair. We have proposed a way forward that is equitable, pragmatic, and informed by those closest to the work. If the district values data, trusts its educators, and genuinely wants to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable students, there should be no resistance to a truly collaborative process.   The sooner we reach a tentative agreement, the sooner we can move forward with a plan that centers on students and respects educators. We want to build a relationship of trust and shared vision with our district.  However, until we are granted both a voice and a vote, we will continue to fight for the education that our students deserve. Sincerely, JeffCo educators

We are writing as concerned members of the El Paso community, a city shaped by migration, resilience, and the lived experiences of a predominantly Latinx population. We are dismayed and outraged by the decision of the El Paso Public Library to host a U.S. Border Patrol agent as part of a children’s event on June 20, 2025, particularly during Pride Month, a time meant to center marginalized voices and create visibility for those most often excluded. It is hard to believe that we even have to explain why this was deeply inappropriate. A library -of all places- should understand the importance of trust, safety, inclusion, and it should foster meaningful civic engagement for all members of the community. Libraries are one of the few remaining public institutions people turn to for refuge, learning, and imagination. That this basic principle needs to be reiterated to library leadership is both alarming and unacceptable. Instead of promoting reading and curiosity, this event exposed children to the presence of militarized law enforcement-an institution that our community associates with trauma, separation, and fear. One need not look further than the headlines to see that Border Patrol has been wreaking havoc and fear among immigrant communities, deporting and detaining people without due cause or trial and breaking the US Constitution and Supreme Court.1 Border Patrol’s actions have been so horrific and unconstitutional that El Paso County signed 2 resolutions protecting immigrants’ rights, which CBP continues to ignore.2,3 For the library to invite any law enforcement, but especially the Border Patrol to the Chamizal Community Center, a barrio 99% hispanic, breaks trust with the libraries own constituents. Children were photographed alongside agents in tactical gear and these images were shared on social media. We ask: How does this align with the mission of a public library? How does this inspire children to read or think creatively about their futures? As a community, we ask you to take the following actions: 1. Make a public commitment that U.S. Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies will not be invited to enter the public library unless required by a legal search warrant. 2. Issue a public apology for the harm caused by allowing CBP agents to lead an activity for children. 3. Pledge that future programming -especially for children- will not include law enforcement recruitment or presentations. 4. Clarify whether parental consent was obtained before children were photographed and shared on social media alongside armed agents. We also want to reiterate that Border Patrol and law enforcement agents should not be invited in spaces that are intended to be safe havens -particularly for immigrant, queer, and BIPOC youth. At a time when schools and other public institutions are being increasingly co-opted for law enforcement recruitment, libraries must resist becoming yet another arm of the carceral system. You cannot claim to be a safe space if you welcome the very forces many of us fear. We urge you to reflect on your role as stewards of public trust and community care. This moment requires not neutrality, but ethical leadership. Below we provide links to actions other cities have taken to protect its residents.4,5 We call on you to publicly take a stand and ensure that this never happens again.  We respectfully request a public response to these concerns within 14 days of receiving this letter. We believe this is a reasonable timeline for acknowledging community voices and demonstrating a commitment to transparency and accountability.

To see how this tax increase would work in real life, consider a single mother who makes $34,000 a year with two teenage children, ages 14 and 17. Right now, she gets a $9,300 standard deduction by filing as a head of household. She also gets three exemptions for herself and her two children of $4,050 each, for a total reduction of $12,150. Altogether, the standard deduction and personal exemptions reduce her taxable income to $12,550. This is taxed at a 10 percent rate, so her tax bill comes to $1,255.Under Trump, the same single mother gets a larger $15,000 standard deduction, but $0 in personal exemptions, which brings her taxable income to $19,000. This means significantly more of her income is subject to taxes compared to current law, expanding her bill. Moreover, Trump taxes this income at 12 percent instead of 10 percent, which results in a tax obligation of $2,280 — $1,025 more than what she owes now.Since her children are too old for Trump’s child care deduction — which is limited to children under the age of 13 — it wouldn’t help her at all. The good news is that since she benefits from the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit for working families, she should still get a tax refund. The bad news is that her tax refund would be $1,025 less under the Trump plan than it would be under current law, since her higher tax obligation under Trump’s plan has to be deducted from the refund.At the same time, Trump would give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans: The top income tax rate paid by millionaires and billionaires would drop from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. And Trump repeals the estate tax, which could mean a tax cut of up to $4 billion for his own family. But repealing the estate tax won’t matter for the struggling single mother, since only the richest 0.2 percent of estates pay any estate taxes.The huge cost of Trump’s plan also jeopardizes the funding necessary to sustain vital middle-class investments such as Medicare, education, and infrastructure. This is the most important reason that the Trump tax plan would hurt middle-class families. But even when Trump claims that they’ll benefit from his tax cuts, his plan still sticks many struggling families with a tax increase that could be devastating.

***Please share and discuss publicly*** I'm calling out Tom Burns, the new OLCC director of marijuana programs via measure 91 voter approval, for serving in a position for public benefit, but has a resume displaying 20 + years of serving pharmaceutical interests: G.D. Searle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._D._Searle_%26_Company) and GlaxoSmithKline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline) as a lobbyist. Biography sourced from http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2014/12/oregon_liquor_control_commissi_1.html Tom Burns Age: 61 Job: Director of marijuana programs for the Oregon Liquor Control Commission Education: Bachelor’s degree from California State University at Stanislaus; studied economics and political science Family: Burns has a longtime partner, Brent Miller, who retired as director of the California State Library System; the couple has a son, Alex, 19. Work history: Burns worked in California state government for 17 years, beginning as education policy advisor to then-Gov. Ronald Reagan. He went onto work as a policy advisor and later executive officer for state Senate. From 1990 through 2008, he worked as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, representing G.D. Searle & Co. and later GlaxoSmithKline, where he went onto become vice president for state government affairs. In 2002, while working for GlaxoSmithKline, Burns and his family moved to Oregon. He retired from the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 and took a job as an aide to state Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland. In 2009, he was hired as director of pharmacy programs for the Oregon Health Authority. He was tapped to manage the dispensary program in 2013. I have been to two public meetings with OLCC commissioners and I am astounded by the ineptitude of the commissioners in regards to cannabis, which makes me feel that we have the wrong people in important publicly paid positions (your tax dollars at work!). Personally, I don't want to see our tax dollars pay for any persons salary that has previous employment by unethical pharmaceutical corporations. I would like to file an injunction based on this conflict of interest and propose a public election for these publicly funded positions of power. I would also like to see petitions set up at local businesses and dispensaries around the state of Oregon to see what the public sentiment towards the appointment of a person who has a long history with the pharmaceutical corporations working as the Oregon Liquor Control Commission director of marijuana programs. I love Oregon and I will always protect the air, water, earth, food, and health of the state and for the people. Thanks! ***Please share and discuss publicly***

Dear Board of Supervisors of Orange County, Those signing this petition request that you give full consideration to the following remarks when addressing the 2013-14 school year budget in context with the proposed county budget. Orange County Schools are one of the lowest funded school systems in Virginia. In 2010-2011, Orange County Schools spent the lowest amount of money per pupil out of 132 districts. See, e.g., Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2013-2014. Stated differently, Orange County Schools spent the absolute lowest amount per pupil in the entire Commonwealth, ranking it 132nd out of 132 districts. This is not a ranking to be proud of. The dead-last ranking on education is out of balance with financial realities of our county. According to the Commonwealth, Orange County ranks 50th in its ability to pay for education (per the state composite index report). Accordingly, a strong factual argument could be made for radically increasing spending on public education. Rather than proposing a radical increase, the Superintendent of Orange County Public Schools has proposed a bare bones budget that is not “over the top” in any of the Superintendent’s budget increase recommendations. Rather, the proposed increases are modest increases that begin to address the neglect of our county’s children resulting from our deficient education spending. For example, the proposed five year increases in teacher pay will close the gap in teacher pay relative to Culpepper County, but only after five years and assuming Culpeper County gives NO raises! See Teacher Salary Schedule Comparisons for Surrounding Divisions, presented to the Board of Supervisors on February 12, 2013. This increase in education spending is necessary. Orange County will not be able to draw businesses here nor will our home values increase when our schools are not funded properly. Research proves the direct relationship between the quality of public schools and housing prices. See, e.g., Chiodo, Hernandez-Murillo, and Owyang, Nonlinear Effects of Schools Quality of House Prices, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, May/June 2010, 92 (3), pp. 185-204. Finally, we acknowledge with appreciation that the Board of Supervisors work tirelessly not to put a tax dollar hardship on us. We believe that Dr. Grimesey and the School Board have worked very hard in proposing a modest increase in education spending and we are willing to pay our share to fully fund this increase for the 2013-14 school year. Please vote “yes” to fully funding education for next year. Thank you, Your Constituents