If you don't see images in this message, click "Display Images" or the equivalent.
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Receive this as a forward? Get the Nooner in your e-mail box.
To be removed from The Nooner list, click here.
Become a Nooner Premium subscriber (or below buttons for Square) to access enhanced legislative profiles, exclusive election analysis, and downloadable back-end data. | Follow @scottlay
Advertise in The Nooner to reach over 8,000 readers
- Capitol Weekly Podcast (John Howard and Tim Foster): Campaign consultant Gale Kaufman on education at the ballot box. (2021-01-31)
- Look West California (Assembly Democratic Caucus): Get to know Speaker Anthony Rendon like never before. Join us as he shares how a son of Mexican immigrants came to be the Speaker of the CA State Assembly. (2021-01-29)
- California State of Mind (Rodd, Nichols, and Romero @ CapRadio): Has Gavin Newsom Made the Grade as Governor of the Golden State? (2021-01-29)
- Political Breakdown (Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos @ KQED): Congresswoman Michelle Steel on Emigrating to America, Her Mother's Small Business, and Why She Voted Against Impeachment (2021-01-28)
- Inside Golden State Politics (Bill Boyarsky and Sherry Jeffe): Vax mess! Latest on the rocky rollout of the Covid vaccine and its impact on California's governor and President Biden (2021-01-28)
- MICRA initiative (Oppose): Californians to Protect Patients and Contain Health Care Costs, a Coalition of Physicians, Dentists and Health Care Insurers and Providers: $1,000,000 from NorCal Mutual Insurance Committee ("loan")
- Lincoln Club of Orange County Issues PAC: (filing)
- Contributions received:
- Henry Pritchett (Retired, Newport Beach): $20,000
- Julie Luckey (Luckey Development, Newport Beach: $22,000)
- O'Connell Hotels - William O'Connell (Anaheim): $18,000
- Contribution made:
- Rescue California -Recall Gavin Newsom: $5,000
- Presidential results are now available for each congressional district on the district pages.
- GOV: removed venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya (NPP)
- CA23 (Bakersfield): added actor Bruno Amato (D) - challenge to Kevin McCarthy (R)
- AD54 (Baldwin Hills-Culver City-Westwood): added nonprofit director Isaac Bryan (D) - contingent on Sydney Kamlager's election to SD30 in March 4/May 2 special.
- AD54 (Baldwin Hills-Culver City-Westwood): added Culver City councilmember Daniel Lee (D) - contingent on Sydney Kamlager's election to SD30 in March 4/May 2 special.
- AD79 (East San Diego County): added youth advocate Aeiramique Glass Blake (D) - March 4 special - open seat (Weber)
- AD79 (East San Diego County): added teacher Shane Parmely (D) - March 4 special - open seat (Weber)
STUDENT SUBSCRIPTIONS: I meant to include this in my Friday evening email but it got left out. I do have additional sponsored student subscriptions (normally $10) that I am matching. Any current student can email me a pic of their student ID card and be set up with a Nooner/ATCpro subscription.
The Nooner for Thursday, February 4, 2021, presented by SYASL Partners
-tiers for fears
- Do you recall?
- Poll Position
- Exodus? ...right direction/wrong direction
- Prop. 22
- Cakeday and classifieds
COVID-19: California added 580 deaths yesterday for a total of 42,483 since the pandemic began.
-tiers for fears: Here are the statuses of California's 58 counties. You can see what the restrictions mean here, although county health orders may be stricter than the state.
- purple (widespread): 54 counties
- red (substantial): 1 county (Mariposa)
- orange (moderate): 3 county (Alpine, Sierra, Trinity)
- yellow (minimal): 0 counties
-vaccines: While the fast-track to the vaccines was driven by the Trump Administration under "Project Warp Speed" (although Pfizer did not participate but had a federal contract for mass purchase), the partisan attitude about getting the vaccine is striking. Here are the results from Tuesday's PPIC poll among California adults:
|When it becomes available to you, will you definitely get the coronavirus vaccine, probably get it, probably not get it, or definiely not get it?
|definitely get the vaccine
|probably get the vaccine
|probably not get the vaccine
|definitely not get the vaccine
|(VOL) already got the vaccine
|(VOL) don't know
|Source: Public Policy Institute of California, Californians and Their Government, January 2021, all adults crosstabs
So, adding those who would definitely and probably get a vaccine, among all adults it is 68%, Democrats is 77%, Republicans are 49%, and Independents (which include unaffiliated and third parties) are 64%.
Thinking about it this morning, I wondered how much politics played into the response. After all, the vaccines were developed with partnerships with the Trump Administration and the effectiveness and safety have been beyond most medical experts wildest dreams. Now the distribution is under the Biden Administration.
Fortunately, PPIC asked a question in its preelection October 2020 Statewide Survey.
|If a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 were available today, would you definitely get the vaccine, probably get the vaccine, probably not get the vaccine, or definiely not get the vaccine?
|definitely get the vaccine
|probably get the vaccine
|probably not get the vaccine
|definitely not get the vaccine
|(VOL) don't know
|Source: Public Policy Institute of California, Californians and Their Government, October 2020, all adults crosstabs
The good news is that the share of all California adults who will definitely or probably get the vaccine has increased from 57% to 68%. However, that's driven by Democrats (+21%) and Independent (+8%) voters. Republican voters have stayed statistically the same (-1%).
People who I know in all three partisan/non-partisan categories have mostly moved from "probably get the vaccine," "probably not get the vaccine," and "don't know" categories to "definitely get the vaccine." Some would prefer to get the Johnson & Johnson single-dose vaccine which is pending approval from the Food and Drug Administration, but everyone in my universe is now saying they will get it after seeing the effectiveness results and very few side effects.
If you missed it, that Placer County case of somebody dying after the vaccination publicized by the Sheriff's Office turned out to be completely wrong and its social media posts announcing the death was premature. The office posted to Facebook:
Through our investigation, we have learned more details about the individual. We have learned that not only had he recently been diagnosed with COVID-19, he also had underlying health issues, and had been exhibiting symptoms of illness at the time the vaccine was administered. Clinical examination and lab results have determined the COVID-19 vaccine has been ruled out as a contributing factor in the individual’s death.
We would also like to take this moment to sincerely apologize for some of the Facebook comments made by our agency after we first informed the community of this incident. We realize how they were taken by the public, and it should not have happened.
Anyway, I am far from an anti-vaxxer. As I wrote in this space, I got my flu shot. That said, had I been surveyed in October, I am not sure how I would have answered the question. As I talked about with my mom and on which we both agreed, we were both concerned by the fast-track process and the new use of mRNA vaccines and wanted to wait and see effectiveness and side effects. We're now in the "definitely get" category even though neither of us can "actually get."
While we both voted for Biden/Harris (shocker, I know), our changed views on the vaccine are based on results and side effects, not politics. All that said, I'm guessing a lot of those "probably not get the vaccine" folks in the January poll are looking for an appointment now.
Meanwhile, Paul Sisson reports for the SDUT that the region is prepared to vaccinate far more people but don't have the requisite doses.
The county’s ever-growing vaccine distribution network is now capable of delivering more than 20,000 doses every day, but county officials said Wednesday that only about half of that capacity will be available anytime soon due to an ongoing mismatch between vaccine supply and demand.
There simply are not enough doses to go around no matter how many clinics open across the region.
Nathan Fletcher, chair of the county Board of Supervisors, worked to set expectations during his weekly COVID-19 update, reminding the public that the pace of vaccination is dictated by doses, not desire.
“We have just gone beyond the supply of vaccines ... as a county, we can only give what we have received,” Fletcher said. “The supply of vaccines has not kept up with our ability to build out infrastructure to administer them.”
-school daze: In the Times, Money, Lin and Blume report on Governor Newsom's call for schools to reopen yesterday during his announcement of the new mass vaccination site at the Oakland Coliseum.
Gov. Gavin Newsom said he believes schools can begin to reopen even if all teachers are not yet vaccinated against COVID-19, provided that proper safety measures and supports are in place — although some teachers unions, including United Teachers Los Angeles, have said vaccinations should be a prerequisite to resuming in-person instruction.
“We can safely reopen schools as we process a prioritization to our teachers of vaccinations,” Newsom said Wednesday.
“I’d love to have everybody in the state vaccinated that chooses to be vaccinated,” he said during a briefing held to announce the future opening of a community vaccination center at the Oakland Coliseum. “Not only would I like to prioritize teachers, we are prioritizing teachers.”
However, United Teachers Los Angeles and other teachers unions have balked at resuming in-person classes before teachers are inoculated. L.A. Unified Supt. Austin Beutner has said it is crucial that health officials specifically target school employees for vaccination while campuses are closed so that this impediment to reopening is removed.
“Vaccinating school staff will help get school classrooms opened sooner,” Beutner said this week.
The LAT's Blume, Netburn, Money, and Lin also look at the pressure to get back into the classroom.
A spokesperson for the California Teachers Assn. praised the intent of the Biden administration to open schools safely and the CDC’s efforts to “make up for lost time” in the wake of the Trump administration.
The union said that the state should prioritize school employees in order of greatest need to open campuses in phases — and also to protect employees in campuses already open.
“They should get vaccines to all employees required to report in-person and before the students return to campus,” said Claudia Briggs.
Los Angeles Unified Supt. Austin Beutner has said it’s crucial that health officials target school employees for vaccination while campuses are closed so that this impediment to reopening is removed.
“It won’t be sufficient to vaccinate some school staff now and others far down the road,” Beutner added.
Campuses in the nation’s second-largest school district have been prepped to operate safely for instruction and to serve as community immunization centers, he said.
Because of complex and evolving guidelines — and health conditions — some suburban and rural California school districts have reopened. Others successfully applied for elementary school waivers to reopen or took advantage of rules allowing in-person services for students with special needs.
Of course, last Monday, everyone 65+ (rather than 75+) is now in the same category as school employees. High school teachers are in the same category as third-grade teachers. While some high schools have reopened against state guidelines, the vast majority have not and do not plan to this school year.
Category 1B is now 8.5 million Californians on top of the 3 million in Category 1A for a total of 11.5 million in the "now vaccinating" category. If the two-dose vaccine protocol is followed, that's 23 million needed doses. Of course, 24% of California adults say they are unlikely to get the vaccine, that would reduce it to 17.5 million doses.
From yesterday's California Department of Public Health release:
As of February 3, providers have reported administering a total of 3,792,797 vaccine doses statewide. Numbers do not represent true day-to-day change as reporting may be delayed. The CDC reports that 6,343,925 doses have been delivered to entities within the state, and 6,693,300 vaccine doses, which includes the first and second dose, have been shipped.
Thus, we have a ways to go to get through Phase 1B and then you have the issue of how to handle teachers and other school staff who refuse the vaccine.
Meanwhile, the City and County of San Francisco has sued the San Francisco Unified School District, arguing that education officials aren't doing enough to plan to reopen schools. Heather Knight writes for the Chron:
City Attorney Dennis Herrera, with the blessing of Mayor London Breed, plans to sue the San Francisco Board of Education and the San Francisco Unified School District for violating a state law compelling districts to adopt a clear plan during the COVID-19 pandemic describing actions they “will take to offer classroom-based instruction whenever possible.”
The law says such a plan must be in place particularly for students who’ve experienced “significant learning loss due to school closures.” But not a single student in the San Francisco public schools — including students with severe disabilities, homeless students and those learning English — has seen the inside of their classroom in nearly 11 months, and district data shows learning loss has hit students of color and low-income students particularly hard.
Even with that glaring inequity, the district’s plan for welcoming any of its 52,000 students back remains full of “ambiguous, empty rhetoric,” Herrera said.
The Chron's Jill Tucker and Bob Egelko report on the response to the lawsuit from school officials.
Superintendent Vincent Matthews said Herrera’s allegations have no merit.
“We absolutely have a comprehensive plan,” he said. “We are reassessing different parts of the plan, but the plan is still there.”
He added the lawsuit was a distraction.
“This isn’t helpful when we’re all in this together,” he said. “To turn on those of us trying to solve this is not helpful whatsoever.”
Newsom’s comments [at the Oakland Coliseum event] came the same day that Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said schools can safely reopen even if all teachers are not vaccinated against COVID-19.
“I ... want to be clear that there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen, and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated in order to reopen safely,” Walensky said at a briefing of the White House COVID-19 response team Wednesday. “Vaccination of teachers is not a prerequisite for safe reopening of schools.”
Jeff Zients, coordinator of President Biden’s COVID-19 task force, said Wednesday that the president wants schools to reopen and to stay open.
Chron legal eagle Egelko looks at the legal issues surrounding who decides when it's safe to return to in-person instruction. Of course, the on-the-ground issue is a collective bargaining one, and things weren't great in large districts before the pandemic. Two years ago, we were fresh off the Los Angeles Unified teachers strike, with similar actions in Oakland and San Francisco. Sacramento City Unified teachers still don't have a contract. Returning to the classroom is not just a personal health issue for teachers, particularly as there are discussions of extending the school year into the summer.
-Governor Newsom update/announcement of A's vaccine partnership on 02/03:
-HHS Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly update on 02/02:
-HHS Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly update on 01/26:
-Governor Newsom update on 01/25:
more stories after the jump...
EDD/UNEMPLOYMENT: In the Times, Patrick McGreevy writes up yesterday's hearing of the Joint Legislative Audit and Assembly Insurance committees on the state's struggling unemployment insurance system.
California lawmakers on Wednesday demanded quick fixes to the state unemployment benefits system a week after two scathing state audits found poor planning and ineffective management caused significant delays in payments to people left jobless during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The calls for swift action during a state Capitol oversight hearing came as many officials are also sounding the alarm that Californians whose identities were stolen as part of unemployment fraud schemes will need immediate help from the state Employment Development Department to avoid tax liability on the benefits wrongly paid to others in their names.
[California State Auditor Elaine] Howle laid out a series of recommendations that include developing better tools for processing claims and stopping fraud, and expediting reviews of 1.4 million claims suspended in December pending investigation of potential fraudulent activity. The auditor also said the EDD needs to increase staffing at call centers and improve training so those answering calls can resolve problems with claims.
EDD Director Rita Saenz, who took over the agency Jan. 1 from retiring director Sharon Hilliard, told the legislators she supports implementing recommendations as quickly as possible.
“Obviously, what we have heard today is very sobering, and I and our executive team take all of these recommendations seriously,” Saenz said. “Mistakes have been made. They have got to be rectified.”
DO YOU RECALL? For Politico, Jeremy B. White writes that Governor Newsom's allies is now taking the recall effort seriously.
The campaign to oust Newsom went from unlikely to unavoidable this week as pervasive frustration with Newsom’s pandemic management cut sharply into his approval numbers. The longer businesses have been closed, hospitals full and school campuses shut, the more the movement has gained traction beyond conservative social media circles.
The nation's biggest Democratic vulnerability after a score of blue victories has become an irresistible nightly feature on Fox News. Should the effort qualify, look for money to pour into the state and celebrities to add their names to the ballot, if only for the promotional benefits.
Newsom still deflects questions about the opposition effort by saying he is singularly focused on vaccinating Californians and reducing Covid-19 spread. He has adamantly denied that his abrupt decision to reverse stay-at-home orders last month was an attempt to quell voter frustration. And he seems determined to avoid legitimizing the effort by acknowledging it.
But California Democrats and their political backers are bracing for a campaign nevertheless as recall organizers turn in hundreds of thousands of signatures. State lawmakers are proclaiming their support for Newsom, seeking to tamp down any signs of disunity. Interest groups and donors who would be called upon to fund a recall defense are quietly ramping up, with one union launching the first public counteroffensive.
“Are we getting prepared to oppose it? Of course,” said Joe Cotchett, a longtime ally and donor to Newsom.
The recall could still fail to qualify. The deadline to certify is March 17, and the campaign is still operating on a shoestring budget by statewide campaign standards, relying on volunteers and some paid mail to collect the 1.5 million valid signatures they need. Proponents claim they have 1.3 million total signatures, still a ways off the nearly 2 million they will likely need to compensate for invalid signatories.
Still, the campaign had a surprisingly high rate of valid signatures in the last statewide report through early January, hovering around 85 percent. California county registrars have verified about 600,000 signatures so far.
“This public report does show a very high validity rate but their ultimate success relies on a few things: what happens to their response rate and what happens to their validity rates as they need to broaden their audiences out past just the hardest-core anti-Newsom audiences?” said Ned Wigglesworth, a consultant who is not affiliated with the campaign. “This huge flag is, as they work their way through the voter file, have they gotten this low-hanging fruit?”
From what I've heard and based on who has received them, petitions are being mailed to regular GOP and NPP voters in tranches in descending order of voting propensity.
Meanwhile, George Skelton pens a column for the Times, writing that while the recall may qualify, it is likely Newsom beats it.
New major polls this week on Gov. Gavin Newsom show two things: The effort to recall him probably will make the ballot. And the odds are high that he’ll survive.
He’s likely to beat the recall attempt because Americans today are so polarized, they tend to vote knee-jerk with their parties. And there are nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans in California.
“There’s probably going to be a recall election,” Mark Baldassare, president and pollster of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, told me.
“But the likelihood of the election succeeding is a different story. It’s a heavy lift. Most voters are Democrats.”
“In short,” Baldassare asserted in a written statement accompanying his new poll, “the math favors the effort to qualify for the ballot. But the base of Republicans (24%) or Trump voters (34%) falls well short of the majority needed to remove and replace the governor.”
It’s not a lock for Newsom, however. Voters will be grading his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Right now, even some Democratic voters are holding back their support.
Newsom “should be getting [voters]; he’s not,” says Mark DiCamillo, poll director at the nonpartisan UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. “They’re withholding judgment until they see what happens with COVID.
“It’s like a storm cloud over the governor’s head.”
The registered voters DiCamillo refers to are the 20% of Democrats and 28% of independents who said they’d be undecided if a recall election were held today.
Overall, however, the numbers favor Newsom — only 36% for the recall and 45% against it.
I've written in this space over the last couple of days also that January was likely the worst month for polling for Governor Newsom during the pandemic and his approval rating is still better than January 2020.
Finally, I've talked a couple of times about the platform of venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya (NPP) floated run for governor in the recall election. He wanted to have a minimum teacher salary of $70,000, a $2,000 state grant for every child, and, uh, a 0% personal income tax. Yesterday, he acknowledged the truth on the All-In Podcast the he co-hosts with tech veterans Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg.
Let's be really honest. I'm not ready to do any of that...
He could have stopped there.
What I need to do is, I need to figure out a) my business and where it's going and b) I do think it's worth figuring out what are the conflict of interest laws and what do you have to do if all of this were to come to pass because I can not make a credible decision unless I knew that because I have things I want to do and that to me are the most important things. I'll be really honest with you. I'm working on some things on batteries that are important in more places than just California...
Considering the ballot for the gubernatorial recall we saw in 2003, this is exactly the sort of half-assed serious approach that would fit right in!
Chamath contributed $100,000 on January 29 to the signature-gathering effort for the recall. Hopefully someone told him that he is now a major donor and must register as a committee.
POLL POSITION: I posted to Twitter the Governor Newsom job approval trend poll since January 2019 which I included in yesterday's Nooner. It triggered a response "Except that when when his job approval was at 60 nobody alleged any artificial increase."
I didn't remember if I had written about the crisis phenomenon yet, but indeed I did.
On June 4, 2020, the day after the May PPIC poll was released which was the peak of Newsom's approval rating, I wrote:
Governor Newsom has seen a spike in his approval rating, which at 64% among likely voters now exceeds Jerry Brown's high-water mark of 62%. This of course is largely the phenomenon of rallying around the leader during a crisis. On coronavirus response, Newsom is at 69%/28%, and on jobs and the economy, he is at 57%/35%.
EXODUS? For Capitol Weekly, Chuck McFadden looks at people moving out of California.
The Public Policy Institute of California tells us that its recent online survey of 2,325 California residents, taken between Nov. 4 and Nov. 23, found 26% of Californians have seriously considered moving out of state and that 58% say that the American Dream is harder to achieve in California than elsewhere in the United States.
“California’s population increased by 21,200 between July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020, to total 39.78 million, according to official population estimates … This represents a growth rate of 0.05 percent, down from 0.23 percent for the prior 12 months – another record low state population growth rate since 1900 … Now more than 7 million people born in California call other states home,” the state Department of Finance reported on Dec. 16.
The exodus from the Golden State may be large, but nationally, California ranks fifth among states losing population. New Jersey leads, followed by New York, Illinois and Connecticut.
McFadden then discusses the companies, large and small that have moved operations in whole or in part out of the state.
If there is a recall election this year, we're going to hear a lot about people fleeing the state and how miserable things are. If I was running the campaign for the recall and a succession candidate, of course that would be the message. But, is that really how people feel? I wanted to find out. As you know, I'm big on long-term trends to understand the context in which any given moment fits.
So, let's look at 22 years of polling on the right direction/wrong direction question routinely asked by PPIC.
Generally, this question trends with the economy. Despite the pandemic and the catastrophe for many businesses, the fundamentals of the economy are still strong. Over the last week, tech companies posted some of their most profitable quarters ever and while the stock market is not the economy, those with retirement accounts opened up their statements largely with jaws dropped.
Among all adults, those answering "right direction" total 3.6% above the 22-year average. If we drop the two years of the Great Recession of 2009 and 2010, the average drops to 50.3%. January 2021 still exceeds that.
At this point before the last recall, 28% of California adults said things were going in the right direction while 60% answered wrong direction. In PPIC's poll taken last month from January 21-31, 51% answered right direction and 44% said wrong direction.
That's not to say that Governor Newsom can put his feet up. As I have said way too many times I am sure, in on February 4, 2020, we sure didn't know what was to come in the months ahead and today we are similarly unable to see ahead of the steps immediately ahead of us.
I still have lots to get through on the poll. It's a busy week for the first week of February!
Prop. 22, SacTown, cakeday, and classifieds after the jump...
PROP. 22: For Courthouse News, Maria Dinzeo reports that the California Supreme Court yesterday rejected a direct challenge by SEIU to the constitutionality of Proposition 22, the measure backed by transportation network ("gig work") companies that was approved by voters on the November ballot. Dinzeo writes:
The court did not give a reason for its decision, but posted a notice on its website on Wednesday saying it had denied the petition.
The Service Employees International Union and several gig workers filed a direct writ with the high court in January. They claimed, among other things, that the measure unconstitutionally overrides the Legislature’s authority to extend workers’ compensation benefits to app-based drivers in the future, and impermissibly requires a supermajority vote to make any amendments.
Gig economy giants like Uber, Lyft, and Doordash spent $205 million to pass the initiative exempting them from a new California law requiring a strict test to determine if companies can continue to classify workers as independent contractors and deny them benefits.
Attorney Scott Kronland, who filed the petition on behalf of the drivers and the union, said last month that the writ was filed directly with the state Supreme Court to avoid years of litigation in multiple lower courts. But the court’s rejection means that the case will have to be re-filed in state court and work its way up to the justices again.
SACTOWN: In The Bee, Rosalio Ahumada writes that Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg is taking the blame for the failure of the city to open a cold weather shelter during the worst of last week's storm overnight Tuesday.
Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said Tuesday he should receive the blame for the city’s failure to open a downtown emergency homeless shelter as a powerful storm pounded the region last week, when howling winds badly damaged homeless camps and endangered the lives of those sleeping outdoors in the pelting rain.
Some homeless people were injured during vicious winds that hit Sacramento that night. Four homeless people died during last week’s storms, although it is unclear whether the weather contributed to their deaths.
“You better believe we should’ve opened a center on (Jan. 26). And we did not,” Steinberg said during Tuesday night’s City Council meeting.
The mayor said he’s accountable, and he accepts that, for failing to get the city to divorce itself from county criteria that only allows warming center to open when the temperature hits 32 degrees. The temperature didn’t meet that criteria Jan. 26, but the wind chill reached 32 degrees, or freezing that night.
cakeday and classifieds after the jump...
CAKEDAY: Happy birthday to Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia and Pamela Lopez!
Add your classified now both in The Nooner and online
for $50/week or $150/month by emailing
email@example.com, with a headline, a summary of up to 200 words, and what you'd like the end date to be. You can attach a PDF or provide a link for a bigger job description/info to apply. [Other advertising options]
California Forward: Director of Public Policy
California Forward seeks to hire a Director of Public Policy to lead development of a cohesive public policy agenda that reflects the mission and promotes the organization as a vehicle for change in California. Please see the full description here: https://cafwd.org/about-us/jobs/
California Health Benefits Review Program Legislative Briefing
Working on legislation related to health insurance/Medi-Cal this year? In 2021, will you or your office:
- Propose a health insurance benefit-related bill?
- Propose a bill related to reimbursement for certain kinds of health care providers or facilities?
- Propose a benefit-related bill for Medi-Cal?
- Sponsor or take a position on one?
- Vote on one?
Great! Legislators, legislative and agency staff, advocates, health plan staff, and the public are warmly invited to the annual legislative briefing of the California Health Benefits Review Program (CHBRP), which will take place virtually this year.
Informational flyer | Register
CCST Announces 2021 Science in Public Interest Awards
On Feb 2nd, the California Council of Science and Technology recognizes Senator Robert Hertzberg, Assemblymember Chris Holden, and former California Energy Commission Vice Chair Janea Scott with its 2021 Science in Public Service Award for their work to reduce disaster impacts in CA. The award honors distinguished public servants who are leaders in connecting science and technology with policy.
McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific
Built on the foundation of nationally ranked and world class programs, McGeorge School of Law offers an online master (MSL) degree for individuals seeking in depth knowledge of law and policy, but who do not require a traditional law degree. Our MSL’s two concentrations in Government Law & Policy and in Water & Environmental Law offer students the flexibility to work while they learn and still engage in a highly interactive master’s program. To learn more and to sign up for our monthly webinars, please visit our website, Online.McGeorge.edu, or contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Statewide Coalition Manager – Preschool Development Grant
Are you a relationship builder? Do you love policy analysis? Do you have a background in public policy, public administration, child development, or a similar field? Do you want to work somewhere that makes a difference in the lives of children across the state? Then YOU’RE the person we’re looking for! Come join us at Child Care Resource Center as our new Statewide Coalition Manager!
You will work in partnership with regional Resource and Referral (R&R) hub agencies throughout the state of CA to nurture and build out the partnerships of Regional Hubs and their local R&R partners. This position will focus on expanding regional and local relationships and building regional strategies for the delivery of early childhood services, including Parent Café and Early Childhood Café programs, throughout California, and will also coordinate the development of other regional partners including California Quality Consortia, California County Offices of Education and Tribal partners appropriate to each region. Reporting to the Chief Strategy Officer, this position utilizes a high level of collaboration and relationship building to create effective internal and external relationships, communicate the CCRC Mission, Values and Vision to external stakeholders, and work in collaboration with other CCRC Departments and organizational partners.
Political Data Inc.
For 30 Years PDI has been California’s premier data vendor. Now, you can get live online trainings on the newest PDI software every week: