• Home
  • About The Herald
  • Local Agencies
  • Daily Email Update
  • Legal Notices
  • Classified Ads

Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Business
  • Community
  • Crime
  • Dining
  • Education
  • Faith
  • Health
  • News
  • Politics & Elections
  • Real Estate

Opinion: The importance of early civic engagement for teens

May 1, 2023 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Anay Pant during his video presentation for the 2023 Youth Hall of Fame Awards. Video screenshot.

By Anay Pant

Last year I participated as a High School student poll worker in the 2022 November Midterm elections. This was the first time I felt civically engaged practicing democracy in some form in my country. In a couple of years, I can cast my vote!

Historically, youth voter turnout has stayed around the 25% mark in the USA. It does not indicate that the youth are averse to voting, however studies show that there are structural barriers for youth to participate.

One such barrier is early education and awareness. The USA high school curriculum requires at least 1 semester of American Government class. Topics include the constitutional framework, federalism, the three branches of government, bureaucracy, civil rights and liberties, political participation and behavior, and policy formation. However, the content is not realized in an interactive way, as most students stop at reading a few chapters or watching a documentary.

The reason I got inspired and action oriented was due to my teacher. My teacher gave us practical opportunities such as forums to hear from and interact with our elected representatives e.g., Rep. Mike Thomspon (CA-4), Monica Tranel (MT-02 runner up) and authors such as Mick Rappaport, who have written extensively on the subject.  We had lively discussions in class and homework assignments that did not feel like regular homework. We spoke about current events such as the Nov 2022 midterms, and the importance of student poll workers. I only wish I had been exposed to this subject and my teacher much earlier.

Another structural barrier is the individual themselves.  At home, early civic education largely depends on the motivation of parents and children’s interest in the subject.  Most teens spend little time (<120 minutes per day in the USA) with parents due to the many engagements and distractions.

Teens are constantly occupied (I know it firsthand!)  with daily activities such as schoolwork, sports, after school clubs, internships, hobbies, spending time with friends, social relationships, college admissions planning etc.  It is also a period of emotional growth and hormonal changes with ups and downs and mood swings. A smartphone is perhaps the biggest time sink. Research shows that 95% of US teens have access to smartphones today.

I am a second generation American, with interest in the subject. However, my parents are not well versed in this subject and are themselves learning their civic duties. Therefore, for the 7.2 million second-generation Americans, civic education at school might be the only option.

As an example, as a Junior, I spend about an hour with my parents daily, maybe two on weekends.  Our conversation is usually about academics, family, sports, our pet dog, a movie or food. In my case, my dad and I share a love of history and politics, so we occasionally talk about WWII or political satire from Saturday Night Live or John Oliver. For a second-generation teen like me, school becomes the most important and sometimes the only resource for civic education.

Considering these barriers, it makes sense to start civic education and engagement much earlier. I can also attest through experience that:

  1. Middle schoolers have more time than High Schoolers
  2. Middle schoolers are at the age where they start to form their own opinions about the world around them. Giving them a chance to get involved in their community can help them develop a sense of duty, ownership and responsibility.

Why is this so important?

It is important for each individual to understand their civic duty and make it a habit to vote. The habit should be inculcated in the younger years. Over time when diverse voices from all walks of life exercise their right to vote, it will lead to an equitable and just democracy that most communities can benefit from.

In the 2022 mid-terms, the youth (ages 18-24) turnout was the second highest in three decades6 and quite impactful. Young people across the country had their voices heard and were able to support causes they cared about. According to a Harvard poll around 40% of young voters indicated that they would vote in the election. Overall, around 27% youth ballots that were issued were cast in total.

So, in conclusion I urge my readers to advocate for civic education in Middle School and share the tips below with your school boards and community leaders.

What can schools do

  • Start civics education early – in middle school
  • Encourage students to participate as volunteers in polling stations – local or state-level
  • Expose students to experts, community leaders, and other activists
  • Allow students to organize and run creative programs such as podcasts, talks
  • Recognize students who participate in civic engagement programs

What can communities (Non-Profits, Community Leaders) do

  • Community leaders can create educational programs e.g. field visits to city hall, high courts, etc.
  • Recognize students who participate in Civic engagement programs
  • Nonprofits e.g. Campus Votes could expand their college programs to create school specific programs as well.

I would also love to hear more tips from the readers!

Research Links

[1] https://circle.tufts.edu/understanding-youth-civic-engagement/dispelling-myths-about-youth-voting#myth:-youth-voting-has-been-declining-for-decades

[2] https://circle.tufts.edu/understanding-youth-civic-engagement/dispelling-myths-about-youth-voting#myth:-young-people-are-all-liberal-college-students

[3] https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-amount-of-time-parents-spend-with-their-kids-a-day/

[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

[5] https://cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Population-Hits-Nearly-48-Million-September-2022

[6] https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center#youth-turnout-second-highest-in-last-three-decades

[7] https://iop.harvard.edu/fall-2022-harvard-youth-poll

[8] https://www.campusvoteproject.org/

About Anay Pant

I am a Junior at The Athenian High School in Danville, California. I got interested in civic engagement during the American Politics class I took last semester. The class had a profound effect on me. I was motivated to participate as a student poll worker in the Nov 2022 midterms. I wanted to continue with finding ways to motivate my peers to become aware and action oriented. I launched a civic engagement platform called Qrated (https://qrated.weblium.site/) last year with some success. I am working towards finding avenues to help me outreach my platform

On April 4th, I was awarded the Contra Costa County – Youth Hall of Fame Awards for Leadership & Civic Engagement by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. (See related article here)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anay-pant/

 

Filed Under: Education, Opinion, San Ramon Valley, Youth

Payton Perspective: Rombough and Co. have to go

April 28, 2023 By Publisher 4 Comments

The five remaining Antioch Police Officers being sued in the racist text scandal must resign or be fired

It’s a sad, frustrating, embarrassing and difficult time in Antioch, right now. People are angry, want something done, especially our Black residents and rightfully so. The people of our city must have accountability from those paid to protect us and assurances that the racist and offensive texts sent by several Antioch Police officers will never happen again. Plus, our community needs healing. But things need to be done in a way that is fair to all concerned. (See related articles here and here)

The scandal is the real-life fulfillment of what’s written in the Bible verse, Numbers 23:32, “you may be sure that your sin will find you out.” After reading the texts sent on their personal cell phones and reading the federal lawsuit against them, it’s clear that one officer in particular, and four others should resign immediately to start that healing process and if they’re ever going to be considered men of integrity, again in their lives. Furthermore, they need to find another career path, seek counseling and guidance to become better human beings, be required to publicly ask the forgiveness of the people they texted about, as well as of the people of Antioch that they were sworn to protect, not cost us taxpayers any additional money on investigations, salaries or benefits, and not embarrass us any further. If they don’t quit, they must be fired as soon as the investigation is completed.

Antioch Police Officer Eric Rombough following his hire as a lateral officer from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office on Feb. 14, 2017. Photo by APD

Clearly, the worst of them is Officer Eric Rombough, followed by Sergeant Josh Evans and Officer Morteza Amiri, as well as Officers John Ramirez and Scott Duggar, plus Timothy Manley Williams, who already quit in 2021. It’s no surprise they’re the officers listed in the lawsuit filed last week as they clearly have the most culpability. What they wrote is so disgusting, the fact they found humorous injuring suspects and violating their rights is horrendous, and offering a reward to anyone who would shoot, even with a non-lethal weapon, to injure a sitting city council member is horrific.

Others, including Sgt. James Stenger and Detective Robert Gerber, need to be demoted as a form of discipline within the department for their responses to the texts and not doing what was necessary to stop them. Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver retired last November, so he can’t face any discipline for his part in commenting on the texts and apparently not doing anything to stop them.

To be fair to the officers, the texts in the two reports were clearly cherry-picked by the DA’s Office Investigator out of all the pages of text messages. (The Herald requested them on Thursday, April 27, 2023. They have 10 days to respond.) Since some mistakes have been found in the two reports, any and all texts between officers during the timeframe of September 2019 through April 2022 should be released. Plus, we should know if there are any texts from any of the department leaders telling the officers to stop what they were doing.

The officers who remain in the department must hold each other accountable, as well – be the first check and balance on the misbehavior and bad attitudes of other officers. They need to remember who pays their very generous salaries and benefits and who they are hired to serve – we the people!

But not all of the 44 APD officers named in the reports, including 13 to 15 remaining department leaders who received the texts, should be fired, nor should they lose their pensions. Nor does the department need the U.S. Attorney General or his Department of Justice to provide oversight. All such demands by officials and residents are a serious and unnecessary overreach. The politicians need to help calm things down and be voices of reason, instead of further stirring up emotions trying to appear sympathetic and pander to certain audiences to get votes.

For most of the others included in the text threads, there’s been an overreaction, specifically blowing out of proportion one text message sent by Antioch Police Officers Association president Rick Hoffman, who is also a sergeant in the department. He merely made fun of one of his fellow officers who claimed he was called a racist. Hoffman didn’t write any texts that were racist or offensive about any citizen.

Here’s that exchange:

On 05/04/2020, At 8:59 p.m., APD Sgt. Josh Evans text, “Kardell’s mom was yelling how we shot and killed someone today. That rumor getting around quick.”

At 9:00 p.m., APD Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver text, “Laughed.” APD Sgt. Evans replies, “That was right after she called me a racist as cop….” APD Officer Rick Hoffman laughed at the above listed comment and stated, “Well she has a point.

——————–

While he and other leaders and officers were included in some of the group text threads, to be fair, how can they be held accountable for something they received, and didn’t respond to, as they may have not read those texts?

Ask yourself if you’ve ever been part of group text threads, group chats in Facebook Messenger or even participated in comments made below the post by someone else or yourself on Facebook or Twitter and may not have seen and read all the texts or comments. Just because somebody included you doesn’t mean you took the time to read what the others wrote. I know I’ve been included in text threads, in Facebook Messenger groups and in posts on Facebook, including my own posts, and haven’t had time to read all the texts or comments nor did I respond to all of them. Maybe I’ll respond to only one or two texts, or even a thread of comments under my own Facebook posts. But who has time to read all of them? I know I don’t. So, how can I or anyone be held accountable for something somebody else wrote that you or I didn’t even see, read or respond to? We can’t. Nor should any of the officers who merely were on the receiving end of one or more of the texts. Lumping all the officers into one group of the guilty is wrong, irresponsible and unfair.

Furthermore, had annual reviews been done for each officer – which haven’t been done for anyone in the department since 2017 – the texts sent or received using their personal cell phones would not have been included. So, the leadership would never have known about them anyway. So, that’s a non-issue as far as the text scandal is concerned. But I believe some of the leaders had to know at least the content of some of the texts and didn’t do enough to stop them.

There are what are referred to as sins of commission and sins of omission. While those leaders who received the texts may not have committed any wrongdoing because they didn’t send out any texts, they are guilty of either not doing what they should by reading the texts to know what those who serve under them were sharing or if they did, not doing something or enough to stop it. There’s only one text referenced in the reports in which one officer said to another that one of the leaders, Sergeant Matt Koch told them to knock it off.

The second report reads, On March 31, 2021 At 3:11 p.m., APD Officer Adams texted…“Haha. I forgot that Koch wanted us to stop sending dumb sh-t. Oops.” (a comment that Rombough “laughed” at)

——————–

As for Hoffman, he needs to be a good leader, fall on his sword and at least resign as APOA president for his sins of omission. Because as a sergeant, some of the officers, including Rombough, served under him.

But let’s all slow down a bit, and for all but the five officers still with the department who are listed in the lawsuit, let the investigations be completed before passing judgment. Everybody who screwed up needs to be held accountable however they can be, and that includes those in the Antioch Police Department, as well as the DAs office. That includes disciplining the staff members who merely semi-redacted the first report revealing officers’ phone numbers and the names of the officers included in the FBI investigation as well as the charges they’re facing, as well as to whom the redacted reports were sent and by whom. (See related article)

New Personal Cell Phone Use Prohibition Policy Must Be Implemented

According to Chief Ford, a new policy was implemented last year regarding use of personal cell phones and a restriction on the discussion of police business including suspects with anyone outside of the department. But he said officers can still use their personal cell phones, not just their department issued cell phones, while on duty. I believe that’s wrong, and a new policy must be implemented prohibiting the use of personal cell phones while on duty, and only on their lunch and other breaks, except in a family emergency. I don’t know what other employees are allowed to use their personal cell phones when they’re at work. Officers shouldn’t either. They should be focused on police work and only use their department issued phones while on the job.

Let’s be clear the racist and offensive texts are wrong, horrible, vile, offensive and hurtful whether they were sent on personal cell phones or not. They were egregious, shocking and the entire thing is embarrassing to those of us who live and/or have a business in Antioch and no doubt to the officers who had nothing to do with sending or receiving the texts, and I’m sure to many who merely received the texts and didn’t read them. The bottom line is the five remaining officers named in the lawsuit must be fired and frankly, if they’re going to demonstrate any kind of remorse, responsibility, maturity and respect for the residents of Antioch, resign immediately. Rombough and Co. have to go. That’s what’s necessary to improve the department and begin healing our community. Please join me in praying for that to occur.

Filed Under: East County, Opinion, Police

Contra Costa, other councilmembers warn SB 423 is state’s “endgame” to eliminate local control over development

March 30, 2023 By Publisher 2 Comments

Our Neighborhood Voices, a growing statewide coalition of communities, claims the bill is a permanent extension of SB 35, gives developers unlimited ability to develop nearly anything, anywhere in California

California lawmakers recently introduced legislation that would permanently strip local communities of nearly all important land use decisions. While the legislation – SB 423 – is touted as a tool to solve our affordable housing crisis, local elected leaders say that the legislation undermines local democracy by removing the ability of communities to plan and prepare for what is built in their neighborhoods. It also can accelerate damaging ‘Builders Remedy’ projects across the state that see massive projects built in residential neighborhoods without adequate planning for water, schools, transit, safety fire danger and other priorities.

SB 423 also removes vital protections in our Coastal Zones – something no other housing bill has dared to do. Californians have consistently supported protecting our coasts – this bill removes many of those protections forever.

“I was hoping SB 423 might be a tool to help us solve our affordable housing crisis, but it is not,” said Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember. “Instead, it is the state’s final end game to undermine local democracy in cities and counties, and unleash unlimited development, including the ‘Builders Remedy,’ even in our treasured coastal zones.”

SB 423 can potentially release the ‘Builders Remedy’ where developers can just about build anything, anywhere. SB 423 is a permanent extension of SB 35 – a 2018 law that forces local governments to approve certain developments under a streamlined process if they fail to build, not just approve, but build enough housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. Complex interactions with many other bills lead cities again to be subject to the ‘Builders Remedy’ in 2025 for Southern California and 2027 in Northern California.

The RHNA numbers – which are set every eight years – “laid out impossible goals this cycle,” explains Jovita Mendoza, Brentwood City Councilmember. “Virtually no cities or counties will be able to meet their RHNA numbers. Cities and counties are now set up to fail, and as a result, local governments will lose their ability to have a say about what gets built in our communities. Instead, under SB 423, that approval process will be turned over to developers permanently.”

Coastal zones have been protected from profit-driven overdevelopment since the passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976. This new proposed legislation would virtually undo decades of work to protect California’s coastlines.

“Now local oversight, those who are the stewards of the coastal zone, is removed. Instead, those decisions are handed over to developers and their allies in Sacramento. We all know we need affordable housing in every part of California, but this bill drastically reduces the required affordable units,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim.

Our Neighborhood Voices is a non-partisan coalition of residents and elected officials from every corner of California who believe that land use decisions should be determined by local communities and their elected leaders – not one-size-fits-all laws from Sacramento and for-profit developers.

To get these important questions in front of voters, Our Neighborhood Voices is organizing to qualify a citizen-led ballot initiative that would protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with it.

Filed Under: Growth & Development, Opinion

Op-Ed: Administration scheming to keep U.S. tech workers unemployed

March 28, 2023 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Joe Guzzardi, Project for Immigration Reform

Within less than 72-hours, President Joe Biden bailed out the Silicon Valley Bank and the equally insolvent Signature Bank. The banks’ abrupt failures caused a withdrawal rush on other banks across the nation that Social Science Research Network analysts fear could force nearly 200 depositories to shut their doors. Even insured depositors – those with $250,000 or less in the bank – could have problems withdrawing their cash if these institutions faced the same run-on cash that Silicon Valley experienced a week ago.

The hastily contrived plan included providing SVB’s depositors with access to all their funds, effectively averting painful financial uncertainty and the threat of heavy losses for thousands of venture-backed startups. Signature Bank, which had followed SVB into insolvency, received the same guarantee.

More important, the Federal Reserve will provide a massive lifeline to the nation’s banks that would assure that similarly reckless lenders have access to funds that would keep them afloat and, hopefully, subdue any growing nationwide panic. Biden has since called for Congress to impose stiff penalties on executives at mid-sized banks whose ineptitude leads to bank collapse.

In short, the administration’s bailout plan handed SVB a blank check to cover all its depositors who not coincidentally are mainly Bay Area venture capitalists, Biden’s donor and voter base. All accounts are now covered with FDIC insurance, even those above the $250,000 limit. S&P Global, which provides intelligence and assessments to worldwide corporations, found that tech companies had $151.6 billion in uninsured deposits at SVB, or 93.9 percent of the company’s total holdings.

The SVB fallout has been headlines since Day One; the story is evolving. But, behind the scenes, the Biden administration is working feverishly to grant more favors to his tech pals. The tech industry, led by Lyft, Meta, Twitter and Amazon, has fired at least 150,000 workers. Among those laid off were foreign workers in the U.S. on temporary H-1B visas. The visa allows for a grace period of up to 60 days for those laid off to find another employer sponsor or they must return home. Before coming to the U.S., each H-1B visa employee knew and agreed to the guidelines which included the possibility that, if laid off and unable to find another job, they would have to leave.

Suddenly, however, the H-1B visa’s reasonable conditions are unfair and unacceptable. Led by Biden’s 25-member Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, lobbying to extend the job search period from 60 to 180 days has intensified. The Immigration and Citizenship Status Subcommittee’s final recommendations included not only extending the 60-day time allotment, but also granting the foreign nationals employment authorization documents (EAD), and travel permits to those who have approved I-40 employment documents in the E-1, E-2 and E-3 categories, and have waited in the immigrant visa backlog for five years, regardless of whether they’re able to file for adjustment of status applications.

To have meaning, immigration laws must be adhered to, enforced and not changed to satisfy the whims of special interests. Distributing EADs, mostly to Indians, before green cards become available would incentivize more foreign nationals to flood the immigration sponsorship program and increase the years-long backlog.

The tech layoff – with more to come – should provide employment opportunities for U.S. workers, displaced or denied opportunities for more than three decades since Congress created the H-1B visa in the Immigration Act of 1990. Instead, U.S. tech jobseekers will have to compete with the recent 85,000 H-1B visa winners in the just-completed 2023 lottery, and the recipients of the administration’s pending green card giveaway largess.

Consistent with its open border policy that puts migrants first, the Biden administration ignores U.S. tech workers’ needs and protects legally deportable aliens even though settled immigration law calls for their removal.

Big tech’s insistence that it needs an ever-higher H-1B total has always been suspect. But this year, with massive industry layoffs, the lottery should have been canceled. Furthermore, circumventing immigration laws to create more loopholes for fired H-1Bs, as the expansion lobby is doing, is indefensible.

ABOUT JOE GUZZARDI

Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Project for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania.

 

Filed Under: Opinion

Guest Column: Don’t ignore China’s quest to replace U.S. as world leader in science

March 21, 2023 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Andrei Iancu and David Kappos

Chinese President Xi Jinping is putting his money where his mouth is.

“We must regard science and technology as our primary productive force,” he recently said. He’s already raised his country’s research and development spending to unprecedented levels. Now, he’s filling the highest reaches of government with experts in such areas as artificial intelligence, biotech, and semiconductors.

The United States needs to take this challenge seriously. Many in Washington appear to. The Chips and Science Act, passed in August, directs $200 billion over the next few years into basic research in cutting-edge fields like artificial intelligence and robotics.

But bankrolling basic research alone won’t lead to more innovation down the line. We also need robust intellectual property protections, without which new inventions wither away after the initial discovery for lack of further investment.

The last several decades have taught us that money isn’t everything. For example, the United States now spends about 3% of gross domestic product on R&D annually — a higher proportion than it spent at the height of the Space Race in the early 1960s. And yet, total factor productivity — the best measure of how much value innovation adds to the economy — has shrunk to an annual growth rate of just 0.5%, compared to 1% back then.

In other words, Americans used to get more for less.

This recent lackluster performance is a byproduct of ongoing assaults on IP law, which send a discouraging message to the companies and funds that invest in technology. Consider, for example, a proposal at the World Trade Organization to waive international patent protections on Covid therapeutics and diagnostic tools — most of which have applications far beyond one disease. This would amount to a hand-out of historic proportions to our biggest economic competitors.

The waiver is unnecessary on its own terms in a world where Covid tests and treatments are already in abundant supply. Plus, it would deal a devastating economic blow to the United States, undermine the development of new medicines, and set a precedent that invites even more attacks on IP rights. Other countries could insist on a “right” to U.S. patented technology in areas ranging from renewable energy to agriculture and beyond.

Another case in point: Dozens of members of Congress are urging the Administration to twist the law so that the federal government can seize patents whenever it has contributed so much as a cent to R&D.

It takes an enormous investment to move research from the laboratory to the marketplace, and we can be sure companies would stop funding product development if the government could simply nullify patent rights based on political whim. Kill patents and you kill private investment in innovation.

How can the United States keep its place as the world leader in scientific innovation? For a start, by resisting calls to tamper with patent rights. There is no surer way to cede technological leadership to China.

Andrei Iancu served as the undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property and director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from 2018 to 2021, under former President Donald Trump. David Kappos served as the undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property and director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 2009 to 2013, under former President Barack Obama. Both serve as board co-chairs of the Council for Innovation Promotion.

Filed Under: Opinion

Opinion: Tech workers brace for possible omnibus job-killer bill

November 29, 2022 By Publisher 1 Comment

 

The ‘EAGLE’ Act would revise portions of the Immigration Act of 1990 allowing more foreign workers to fill U.S. tech jobs

Co-sponsored by three Members of Congress currently representing or will represent Contra Costa County – Thompson, Swalwell and Garamendi

By Joe Guzzardi, Progressives for Immigration Reform

Source: U.S. Techworkers

Like the proverbial bad penny that keeps reappearing, lousy immigration bills are hard to kill off. Consider the EAGLE Act of 2022, also known as Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment, or formally recognized as H.R. 3648. The newest proposed legislation is another iteration of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Although it passed the House by a 365-65 vote, eventually it stalled in Congress.

Introduced by immigration lawyer, amnesty advocate, enforcement foe and expansionist champion Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the new and the old versions of her proposed legislation both share the same ruinous-to-U.S. tech workers’ feature: the legislation would rob thousands of U.S. tech workers of access to well-paid, white-collar, high-skilled jobs in the science, technology, engineering and math fields, STEM jobs for which they are fully qualified.

Along with her like-minded congressional allies that include Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), who was just elected as House Majority Whip for the 118th Congress and thus became the third highest ranking Republican in the House, Lofgren has scheduled a vote on the EAGLE Act, which has bipartisan support, when Congress returns from its Thanksgiving recess.

Briefly explained, the EAGLE Act would dramatically revise portions of the Immigration Act of 1990. Almost any alien who has been on the visa waiting list for at least two years with an approved petition for an employment-based green card could apply for adjustment of his status which then wouldn’t count against existing numerical caps. Stated another way, employers can sponsor a temporary foreign-born worker for an H-1B nonimmigrant visa and convert that worker to permanent by merely sponsoring him for a green card. Aliens go from temporarily present to permanent residents. With the stroke of a pen, job searches become more challenging for U.S. tech workers – Congress’ twisted idea of sound legislation.

The bill also eliminates the per-country caps for employment-based visas, which means that within about a decade Indian and Chinese nationals will receive virtually all such visas, especially the H-1B; other countries’ nationals would have an uphill climb to obtain a visa. Under current law, no countries’ nationals can comprise more than 7 percent of any visa category. This provision ensures that skilled workers from around the globe have an opportunity to come to America. The EAGLE Act, however, seeks to entirely remove all caps from employment-based visas and more than double the existing family-preference visa from 7 percent to 15 percent, a hike that would, because of family reunification, ensure significant population surges. The proposed visa cap elimination is ironic because Lofgren and the EAGLE Act’s cosponsors claim to embrace diversity, but the bill heavily favors Chinese and Indian citizens to the exclusion of most others.

Moreover, dependent children of the aliens granted the new status would be allowed to retain their legal standing, a form of amnesty, as dependents of their parents for the duration of the green card application process; they would be protected from aging out while their parents move up in the backlog. An estimated 190,000 minors would be protected.

Time was when Democrats purported to care about America’s minority workers. But their empathy toward U.S. workers is long gone, and is now redirected to foreign nationals, particularly Chinese and Indians. Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities aspire to IT jobs, too. But they’ve had little luck in obtaining those coveted STEM jobs. Pew Research found that black workers make up 9 percent of the STEM workforce, while Hispanics also comprise about 9 percent. The low STEM representation among blacks and Hispanics is largely unchanged from 2016.

For rational thinkers, few and far between in Congress, a push for liberalized immigration laws and amnesty in light of the border surge and its 2 million-plus encounters in 2022 is beyond the pale. But those sound-of-mind types don’t understand the congressional mindset; nothing stops its amnesty drive. And if the EAGLE Act doesn’t get Senate approval, Lofgren always has the option to attach it to a must-pass Omnibus bill. With the 118th House about to transfer into GOP hands, EAGLE Act supporters view December as their last chance to subvert U.S. tech workers.

Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.

Filed Under: Immigration, Jobs & Economic Development, Opinion, Technology

Op-Ed: Help America’s universities keep transforming the world

October 7, 2022 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Bayh-Dole Act results. Source: Speedsprint.com

Bayh-Dole Act for intellectual property licensing designed to stimulate economic growth under attack

By Lita Nelsen

Lita Nelson. Source: LinkedIn

When I was a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology decades ago, Cambridge’s Kendall Square was a grubby, run-down warehouse district. Today, it’s known as the most innovative square mile on the planet.

The secret? The Bayh-Dole Act, or Trademark Law Amendments Act, a landmark piece of legislation passed in 1980 that allowed universities to keep the patents to any inventions they made. That meant that they could license these inventions to private companies, who would turn the new scientific knowledge into innovative products.

That one forward-looking law attracted hundreds of biotechnology companies to MIT’s backyard, helping to breathe new life into Kendall Square and revitalize Massachusetts’s economy. Cambridge, Mass., of course, wasn’t the only university community to thrive because of Bayh-Dole. Cities and towns surrounding hundreds of universities have prospered as a result.

Nevertheless, Bayh-Dole has recently come under attack by lawmakers who want to use the law as a mechanism to cut drug prices. Their goal of lowering drug prices for patients is admirable — but twisting the Bayh-Dole Act to use it as a price control tool would have disastrous consequences for America’s research universities, as well as U.S. consumers and patients, who will suffer as a result of any reduced investment in life sciences.

In a recent letter in support of this idea, lawmakers urged administrators at the Department of Health and Human Services to use Bayh-Dole to “march-in” and take away drug companies’ licenses to certain patents that stemmed from taxpayer-funded research. HHS could then relicense those drug patents to generic pharmaceutical companies that could create cheaper versions of the medicines.

That’s certain to make biotech investors and companies less willing to invest in university research. Why would any firm — small companies and startups especially — assume the risk of developing a new drug when the government could seize its patent rights if federal officials don’t like the price of the final product?

Lawmakers would do well to remember that Bayh-Dole fundamentally changed the research and development landscape in the United States for the better.

I should know. As the head of MIT’s Technology Licensing Office for almost three decades, I helped license thousands of technologies to the innovative companies that sprung up around campus.

Before Bayh-Dole, the government retained patent rights to any academic discoveries supported by public money and licensed just 5% of the nearly 30,000 patents it held. Consequently, while this pre-Bayh-Dole system worked to advance basic research, it failed to turn scientific advancement into usable, commercial products.

Bayh-Dole shifted that paradigm, providing a mechanism to translate academic research results into new technologies ranging from high-definition television and the page-rank algorithm that would become Google to FluMist® and CAR T-cell therapy. Companies exploiting Bayh-Dole inventions have contributed up to $1.9 trillion to the U.S. gross industrial output and up to $1 trillion to our GDP. They have supported nearly 6.5 million jobs and led to the creation of over 15,000 startups.

The bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act, as its authors clearly stated, was never meant to be a price-control mechanism. The law outlines four clearly defined instances where its march-in provisions can be exercised. Controlling prices is not one of them.

What today’s lawmakers don’t seem to grasp is that the unintended consequences of meddling with Bayh-Dole will outweigh any wished-for benefits.

Lita Nelsen retired from the Technology Licensing Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after 30 years in the office. She was director of MIT TLO from 1992 to 2016. This op-ed originally ran in the Boston Herald.

Filed Under: Opinion

OPINION: Congressional Data Privacy Bill would unjustly enrich trial lawyers 

October 4, 2022 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Timothy Lee

Several Members of Congress recently introduced legislation that aims to protect consumer data from misuse and abuse.

Unfortunately, the “American Data Privacy and Protection Act” (H.R.1852) contains significant defects unrelated to much-needed privacy protections for consumers or businesses.

Instead of simply safeguarding the personal information of ordinary Americans and simplifying legal obligations for companies, the bill would uncork a torrent of counterproductive lawsuits that would damage job creators and enrich trial lawyers.

There’s no question America needs a federal data privacy law. Due to the lack of a uniform federal standard, data privacy is governed by a patchwork of state laws and regulations. Consequently, American firms may needlessly spend up to $1 trillion over the next decade trying to navigate that legal maze and comply with the varying statutes — with $200 billion of that burden falling on small businesses.

A single, streamlined federal law would help reassure consumers that their data remains secure, regardless of where they live or where a company is located.

The legislation under consideration, however, contains two massive flaws that would unleash endless class-action litigation over minor or technical violations, allowing lawyers to reap millions while class members receive just a few dollars or, in many cases, nothing at all.

First, the proposed legislation includes a ban on class-action waivers in arbitration agreements, which could prohibit companies and consumers from having their disputes resolved on an individual basis. Arbitration offers a more efficient alternative to court litigation, relying on independent third parties to mediate conflicts. Essentially, the parties in dispute take their issues to a neutral party, present their respective arguments, and agree to abide by whatever the arbitrator decides.

Although trial lawyers are understandably loath to admit it, arbitration is generally better for consumers than traditional court litigation. It is typically cheaper, quicker, and less complicated than formal lawsuits. Consumers prevail 41% of the time in arbitration, versus 29% in court. Additionally, awards in cases decided by arbitration actually exceed courtroom awards — $80,000 versus $71,000, respectively. Arbitration cases are also resolved 27% more quickly on average, and there’s often no need to involve — and thus pay — a lawyer.

However, those benefits present big problems from trial lawyers’ perspective. They prefer huge, class-action lawsuits that, according to a 2015 study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, net consumers an average of $32 while lawyers earn close to $1 million.

The bill’s second massive flaw would create a “private right of action,” which allows individuals to sue to enforce the law no matter how trivial the violation. When numerous individuals can file the same complaint, plaintiffs’ lawyers try to lump them all together in one big lawsuit against a business — even if most of the people in the class are unaware they’re part of a lawsuit. It’s perfectly clear how that benefits lawyers. But it’s uncertain how it would advance consumer privacy and data protection.

Data security and privacy remain serious, complex issues, and Congress should absolutely pursue a uniform national policy. People who steal our data, and businesses that fail to adequately protect it, must be held accountable.

As currently drafted, however, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act contains unacceptable provisions that would enable rich trial lawyers to get even richer while delivering scant benefits to ordinary Americans whose interests they claim to represent.

Timothy H. Lee is senior vice president of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Freedom. This piece was originally published by Inside Sources.

Filed Under: Legislation, Opinion

OPINION: Federal Speak Out Act ignores victims’ right to remain private

August 18, 2022 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Sally C. Pipes

A new proposal in Congress aims to allow victims of sexual misconduct to go public with their stories.

That goal is admirable. But as written, the legislation — the Speak Out Act HR8227, which was introduced in both the House and Senate in recent weeks — will force victims to go public, even if they don’t want to.

That’s hardly pro-women. Many victims prefer to settle claims out-of-court to avoid both the costs and inevitable publicity of litigation.

Supporters claim the measure targets pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements. These agreements are incredibly common when someone begins a new job – more than one in three U.S. workers are bound by such agreements. Supporters of the Speak Out Act applaud the bill for banning the enforcement of such agreements in instances of sexual harassment or assault.

Dig into the details of the Speak Out Act, however, and it becomes clear that the bill is written much more broadly than that.

The legislation defines the term “pre-dispute” as any agreement that is signed before a lawsuit is filed — even if that agreement is reached weeks, months, or years after the incident occurred.

That’s a problem because many out-of-court settlements involve their own non-disclosure agreements. The bill would effectively invalidate these NDAs. Only agreements reached after litigation has commenced — where the claims are publicized in court, complete with lawyers — could have enforceable NDAs.

In other words, the bill would make it virtually impossible for employees to settle sexual harassment or assault claims out of court. That hardly counts as progress — unless you’re a trial lawyer.

For one, lawsuits tend to be an expensive undertaking. Despite significant litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, they don’t always yield justice for the average person.

That’s not to mention the personal costs that litigation can exact on claimants. Many victims of sexual assault or harassment would rather not make their claims public — which a lawsuit requires. More than that, the discovery process in these lawsuits can be stressful — and may reveal embarrassing personal details the claimant would rather keep private.

For all these reasons, many victims of workplace sexual misconduct prefer to leave the courts out of it — and instead reach a private settlement with their employer. Under the Speak Out Act, this sort of approach will no longer be available. Any worker who wishes to resolve their claim for workplace sexual misconduct will need to hire a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and endure the uncertainties, stresses, and costs of litigation.

Add all these costs up, and it’s possible that the Speak Out Act could result in more women remaining silent.

Even if the Speak Out Act weren’t so poorly written, it would remain a troubling instance of congressional overreach. It’s far from clear that lawmakers have the authority to nullify private agreements signed between workers and their employers, even if their intent is to help victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Sexual assault and harassment victims deserve every opportunity to seek justice. But the Speak Out Act doesn’t advance that goal.

Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All (Encounter 2020). Follow her on Twitter @sallypipes. This piece originally appeared in Newsmax.

 

Filed Under: Legislation, Opinion

Analysis: with redistricting Martinez has it best, Brentwood is a close second

December 30, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Source: City of Martinez

Both offer a citizen-driven, transparent process; Martinez council has no say, Brentwood council will only make final choice; Antioch and Richmond get honorable mentions for offering online mapping tools

By Allen Payton

Comparing the redistricting process used by the county supervisors, cities, education boards and special districts in Contra Costa County whose members are elected by district, ward or area, it’s clear that just like the slogan they’ve been using for the past few years, it really is better in Brentwood – than most. But Martinez offers the best process in the county. Both have independent redistricting commissions and offer the same, easy-to-use online mapping tool for the public to draw and submit their own maps. While Brentwood’s process ends with the council only choosing from already completed maps, the Martinez council has no say and takes what their commission gives them.

At least Brentwood’s doing it right, this time. That’s because when the initial districts were drawn and approved in 2019 for the 2020 election and based on the 2010 Census, the Brentwood city council map for Districts 2 and 4 was obviously gerrymandered to benefit one if not more incumbents. Just look at the section of District 2 on the southwest side of the BNSF railroad tracks and you’ll see, that’s surrounded on three sides by District 4. But it really had no effect since those two seats aren’t up for election until next November.

Section of current Brentwood City Council Districts 2 and 4.

Besides Martinez and Brentwood, the following cities and school districts elect their members by district and are undergoing a redistricting process:

Antioch City Council – District Elections – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov) – Antioch online mapping tool

Antioch School Board – Post Census Redistricting / 2020 Census Redistricting (antiochschools.net) – No online mapping tool.

Concord City Council – Redistricting | Concord, CA (cityofconcord.org) – No online mapping tool, yet. Process started Nov. 2.

Richmond City Council – Redistricting 2020 Census | Richmond, CA – Official Website – For online mapping tools click on “Draw Map”.

San Ramon City Council – Redistricting 2022 – City of San Ramon (ca.gov)  – No online mapping tool.  The council will consider final redistricting maps on Tuesday, March 22, 2022.

Contra Costa Water District – No redistricting page nor online mapping tool. The board was given a redistricting presentation during their Oct. 15 meeting. The next meeting will be held on Jan. 5 with expected completion by March 16.

Contra Costa Community College District – www.4cd.edu/gb/redistricting – No online mapping tool. See below for process information.

In 2010, both the college board and the Contra Costa County Board of Education adopted the same exact map. But their website doesn’t offer a very detailed map for the public to see in which district they live and which trustee is their representative.

Source: City of Oakley

Oakley Council Converts to District Elections

The Oakley City Council just completed the process of converting to district elections and adopted a five-member map during their meeting on Nov. 9.

Most Gerrymandered Current District Map

So far, the current map in the county with the most gerrymandered districts I’ve seen is for the Contra Costa Community College District, and as a result of the above, the county Board of Education, too. It combines Lamorinda with Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett in one ward and all of the San Ramon Valley, sans Alamo, in the same ward as Byron and Discovery Bay. Plus, it splits six cities, as well.  Those trustee ward lines were clearly drawn in 2011 to protect the incumbents, at that time.

This year, the college district staff tried to present their board with only one map to consider – drawn by staff and an attorney, with minor changes to the current map, continuing to protect incumbents. Where the current council or board members live is not a required consideration for redistricting. However, it’s understandable why that it would happen since staff members have a conflict of interest and inherent bias in wanting to please their bosses, instead of drawing maps to serve we the people.  (See related article)

Fortunately, the college board wisely directed staff to open up the process for more public input and offer two more proposed maps and an online survey about those choices, although they aren’t offering an online mapping tool.

Current Contra Costa Community College District ward boundaries map approved in 2011. Source: 4CD

Different Deadlines

While school boards have a deadline of March 1, 2022, to complete the process and submit an approved map, city councils have until April 17. The supervisors had to complete their process sooner, because filing for the June Primary election for Districts 1 and 4 opens mid-February and closes mid-March.

While some cities, like Antioch were trying to complete their process by the end of January – which the council just extended by a month – Brentwood’s process, which began Oct. 14 won’t be completed until March 3 and possibly not until March 10.

While congressional redistricting is the most difficult because it requires no more than a one person difference between districts, all other districts can have a maximum of a five percent population deviation from average, referred to as ideal, to be legally acceptable.

Process in Martinez Started First, Includes Independent Commission

Martinez, which began their redistricting process way back in January, has a seven-member independent redistricting commission, not chosen by the council. In August four commissioners were randomly drawn by the Deputy City Clerk from different quadrants in the city. Then those commissioners selected three additional commissioners from a designated pool of applicants. Finally, another random draw was undertaken to determine the two alternates from the remaining pool of qualified applicants.

The commissioners are responsible for drawing council districts in Martinez and held their first meeting on Sept. 22. So, the council has no say. They get what the people give them.

Martinez offers residents an online mapping tool to draw and submit alternative maps, just like the county supervisors’ did, and Brentwood and Antioch offer. While the supervisors’ online tool was easy to use, the tool offered by Martinez and Brentwood is easier. Each of the proposed maps and even the draft maps drawn by members of the public are on the site and can be viewed by anyone.

City of Brentwood 2021-22 redistricting schedule.

Redistricting in Brentwood Better Than Most

Brentwood’s redistricting process also offers residents an online mapping tool. Like Martinez, each of the proposed maps and even the draft maps drawn by members of the public are included on the City’s redistricting website for all to see and review to maximize public input.

The Brentwood city council established an independent, citizens redistricting commission, whose five members and four alternates volunteered and were selected by retired Judge Thelton Henderson – not the mayor and council members – following an application process. All but the last step of the redistricting process was transferred to them. The commission is leading the redistricting process by holding public hearings, reviewing all maps submitted by the public and gathering “community input to ensure everyone’s voice is heard”.

When the commission’s part of the process is complete, it will submit two or more potential boundary maps to the City Council and – here’s the best part – the Council must then select one of the submitted maps – wait for it – without modifying!

Interestingly enough, many of the publicly submitted maps in Brentwood look similar in how best to create new, common-sense districts – drawn based on the principals of compactness, Communities of Interest, using natural and man-made barriers for boundary lines and one-person-one-vote, with the smallest population percentage deviation from average as possible. Unfortunately, some of the maps submitted for the Brentwood City Council process don’t follow the aforementioned principles and can’t be considered because they don’t comply with the maximum population deviation percent requirement.

Honorable Mentions

Both Antioch and Richmond also offer online mapping tools and while Antioch’s has had glitches, it appears those have been worked out. Richmond was using the same tool as Martinez and Brentwood, known as DistrictR. But it has been replaced with Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) because DistrictR uses population estimates while Dave’s Redistricting App uses the official population. Dave’s is difficult to use.

Richmond also offers Maptitude, which is the same software app used by the consultant to the state Citizens Redistricting Commission. But both require someone to sign up in order to use them. People can use Antioch’s online mapping tool as a guest, which requires the map be drawn all in one setting because it can’t be saved without signing up and logging in.

Other Councils and Boards Should Follow Example of Martinez and Brentwood

I can often be pretty tough on candidates and elected officials in my media role and responsibility of holding them accountable. But I also believe it’s good to praise those who are doing it right.

Neither the council members in Martinez nor Brentwood can make any changes to the final maps, thus, they won’t have any ability to gerrymander their districts to benefit themselves. They’ve empowered the people to have control over choosing who they will have represent them instead of the other way around. Representative government in our republic. Hey, what a concept!

Why don’t all the other boards of government agencies in our county do the same? Martinez and Brentwood are the example for the Board of Supervisors, other city councils, school and college boards to follow for the best way to handle the redistricting process.

The Brentwood City Council should be congratulated for doing it right and the best, when it comes to redistricting, this year.

Hopefully, all the other cities and districts, and the supervisors in Contra Costa will duplicate what Brentwood is doing, 10 years from now, the next time they will redistrict. Actually, they don’t have to wait. Once the current process is completed for the 2022 elections, the other councils and districts will have plenty of time for a redo by the 2024 elections.

Unless that happens, then remember, folks, the district lines approved this time will be in place for the next 10 years. So, while the redistricting process may be technical and dry, the decisions made now can and will affect who we have representing us during that time, and making decisions affecting our lives, homes, schools, businesses, and communities. So, stay informed, engaged and give your input on redistricting.

 

Filed Under: Government, Opinion, Politics & Elections

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 18
  • Next Page »
Link with us to help improve your Northern California travel choices, connections, and communities! Click for event info.
CCC-Fair-2023
Monica's-Riverview-AH-Ad-03-1
Smith's-Landing-AH-May-2023
TreVista 05-23
Rocketship-ENG-03-thru-07-23
Celia's-05-23
Delta-RC-8th-12-22B-1
Deer-Valley-Chiro-06-22

Copyright © 2023 · Contra Costa Herald · Site by Clifton Creative Web