Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-24 City Council EmailsFrom:Jeff Levinsky To:Council, City Subject:Council Review Tonight of Changes to Height Transitions Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 6:00:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Councilmembers: Please do not approve the proposed ordinance regarding height transitions tonight. It is the opposite of what you voted for on November 8 and would substantially reduce privacy and protections for R-1 and all other residential zones around the city. Table 3 on page 4 of the proposed ordinance amending 18.16.060(a) demonstrates many of these problems. Here is its proposed rule for when CC, CC(2) and CS properties must lower their height to 35 feet: Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) (9) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 1. The new “abutting” requirement would harm R-1 and other residential zones: Our current law generally requires lowered heights on various properties within 50 feet of certain residential zones. The proposed ordinance deletes that language and only lowers heights on properties that abut, which is defined by our code as sharing a property line. This means buildings separated by a 20 foot alley or 10 foot walkway from residences would no longer need to lower their height - in some cases they could now be 50 feet tall. The same would apply when parcels only touch at their corners, since they too do not “abut” under our laws, allowing 50 foot commercial buildings just a few feet from a residence. The Council never asked for this. Instead, clause C(ii) of your motion called for “stronger protections for elevated floors looking into neighboring lots.” The proposed ordinance weakens protections. 2. Decisions by Planning Director would enable further harm to R-1 and other residential zones: The new footnote 9 says the 150 ft extent of lowered height can be reduced to just 50 ft by the Planning Director. This is not an objective standard and it further weakens existing protections. Again, it is not what the Council asked for. In fact, clause I of your motion asked staff to “evaluate whether ‘decision by director’ option[s] throughout objective standards puts those at risk” and should be changed or removed. The staff report offers no such evaluation and instead compounds the problem by adding new director options to the objective standards, thus making them more subjective. 3. Not all residents are being protected: Clause C(ii) of your motion asked staff to “provide standards for privacy and other protections for all residents, regardless of their zones.” Yet the proposed ordinance continues to treat residents in RM-40, PCs, and mixed-used buildings in commercial zones worse than other residents. 4. No public meetings were held: Clause E of your motion requires “at least two meetings on the proposed changes before the next Council session for free-form discussion by the general public.” No such meetings have been held. No residents and owners of residential properties (including R-1) throughout Palo Alto have been given notice of these changes as far as I can tell, and no effort has been made to identify which properties will lose protections due to the new “abutting” rule. Other problems in the staff report include: 5. PCs can be taller, reducing resident rights: The proposed changes to 18.38.150(b) on page 10 that allow for taller PCs create at least four problems: a. The proposal again introduces the “abutting” requirement that adversely affect residents, including those in R-1, for when PCs don’t abut their properties. b. The current code protects RMD parcels, whereas the proposed ordinance would not. c. RM-30 and RM-40 are clearly protected by the current code when PCs are less than 60% residential but are not by the proposed ordinance. d. Regarding the exception for when PCs are at least 60% residential, staff may believe that the code’s references to RM-4 and RM-5 meant RM-30 and RM-40, but it has been about four decades since RM-4 and RM-5 were used and staff never corrected the code during all these years. It is unreasonable to claim that those who purchased homes in RM-30 and RM-40 since the 1980s should have known that they were getting less protection when our code didn’t say that. In other cases where the Municipal Code doesn’t match what staff intends, staff has agreed to follow the text of the code. Based on those precedents, the City should not now adopt lower protections for RM-30 and RM-40, especially given Council intent to instead provide all residents with more equal protection. 6. Ambiguity between 50 and 150 foot for lowered heights doesn’t exist: Page 11 of the staff report claims that our current code is ambiguous regarding whether lowered heights in CN, CC, CS, and CC(2) extend for 50 or 150 feet. There is no ambiguity and no one has demonstrated any ambiguity. Every example offered by staff of where it claims the City interpreted the rule as 50 feet has been proven false while many staff reports exist that used 150 feet. The one example (4216 El Camino) where it appears the 150 foot law was not followed after it was adopted had no staff report that cited the law nor mentioned the adjacent property that would have triggered the 150 foot rule. It thus is not a precedent. The City should correct the error in the current staff report and not create a false record that could be detrimental to the City in some legal matter. To sum up, please do not spend your time trying to fix the many problems in the proposed ordinance but instead direct staff to correct the above problems per the guidelines you already set last year and to hold the required public meetings before you consider the matter more. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mark Standriff; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; Sally Thiessen; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; dallen1212@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Dr. Campbell Thurs. Jan. 20, 2022 US Hospital Patient remain high. Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 1:36:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:10 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell Thurs. Jan. 20, 2022 US Hospital Patient remain high. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 7:58 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell Thurs. Jan. 20, 2022 US Hospital Patient remain high. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 7:42 PM Subject: Dr. Campbell Thurs. Jan. 20, 2022 US Hospital Patient remain high. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sunday, January 23, 2022 late. To all- Vid by Dr. John Campbell: Recommend listen to this especially from 16 minutes to the end. This is the death knell of the pandemic. US hospital patient remain high - YouTube Watch from 16 to 25 here.."By the beginning of March, 2022 cases will be very low and in the summer cases barely will be there, in the UK." Then we will see cases rise a little next winter. We have to learn to live with Covid the way we do with Flu" say the government experts in the UK.. "I'm confident the worst will soon be behind us. It will start to get better soon. The Covid wards are no longer full of pts. struggling to breath". Expert in the UK that he quotes. LH- We have seen in prior vids by Dr. Campbell that the huge burden of co-morbidities in the US contribute hugely to the jamming of hospitals in the US. There are people in hospitals (1) with no other health problems, Only Covid. They are the "for Covid" group, (2) Then the "with Covid" group- i.e., the people who got tipped over into the hospital by Covid who were almost sick enough to be hospitalized already due to co-morbidities, Dr. Campbell says these are the majority of cases. (3) and then the third group, the truly incidental admissions- people with a broken bone or there for abdominal surgery who test positive for Covid. Up to recently, and perhaps still, the CDC was having those reported as Covid admissions and the hospitals were asking the CDC if they wanted to carry on with that system. At the beginning of this vid, Dr. Campbell discusses the economics of HC in the US and how the hospitalized and uninsured have their hospital bills paid by the government during the pandemic. Do hospitals take people in in the hope they will test positive for Covid? Dr. Campbell cannot believe that our HC system would do that just to make money. If they did, it would (does?) contribute to the hospitals being over-crowded. Dr. John Campbell---Omicron, When to be Exposed" Omicron, when to be exposed - YouTube Here Dr. Campbell discusses how much immunity wanes after how many weeks or months after the initial two shots and after a booster. It wanes pretty fast. Protection against mild, symptomatic disease after the first two shots is gone at 20 weeks. Long term protection against severe disease is maintained far longer. So do you want to get exposed to Covid when you have strong immunity or after your immunity has waned significantly? Interesting question. The booster we all got provides only 45-50% protection against symptomatic disease after10 weeks. It fades that fast. The antibodies it generated fade. He sort of says here that one would almost be better off getting exposed to Covid when your immunity is high, but he is just musing, he says, not making any recommendations about that. But the protection against severe disease provided by the booster is maintained. Probably quite reasonable protection after one year due to the memory T cells. A good report from a British man living in Panama at the end re how Covid is going there. The Panamanian government is vaccinating seamen who put in to Panama. They travel the world and should be vaccinated. Then an organization in GB does the same thing. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Jeffrey Englander To:Council, City Cc:Elliott Wright; Brittany Sabol; Drew Thompson Subject:Foothills Park Accessibility Date:Sunday, January 23, 2022 10:56:36 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from englander.jeffrey@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council People, I want to thank you profusely for opening Foothills park to the community beyond Palo Alto. I am a resident of San Jose since 1985. In 1992 or 93, I was riding my bicycle with a friend and colleague on a Sunday afternoon, and we tried to enter Foothills Park. We did enter around a line of cars without stopping at the Kiosk because we thought there is only a problem with too many cars on the weekend, bikes should be no problem. We were run down by one of the rangers for not stopping, apprehended and cited for trespassing, a misdemeanor. Both of us were physicians practicing at our county hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, a medical facility that is open to ALL county residents and, in fact, as a trauma center to ANYONE who suffers minor to severe trauma. As professionals working at such a center, we could not understand how a public park could not be “public.” Being physicians we did not want a misdemeanor on our record, since these must be reported to the State Medical Board and to the hospitals where we practiced. So we had to hire a criminal attorney to help get the charges erased. We offered community service, presenting Think First Injury prevention programs to interested public schools in Palo Alto. Fortunately the city attorney at the time was receptive to our offer and we made several presentations at Jordan Middle School which were well-received. The charges were erased to our relief. I was delighted when in 2020, the PA City Council decided to open Foothills Park to the general public. For the last 10 years I have been an Environmental Volunteer(EV), and the EVs have become a part of the education program at Foothills Park. I volunteered to become a Trail Ambassador, which has been a great experience. When I “rove” the trails I offer assistance and education to other hikers, trail advice, trash pick-up, and information how they too can become an EV. So far about 80% of my contacts on the trails are individuals from outside of Palo Alto, all of whom seem to be enjoying their experience of being outside in beautiful surroundings. So I want to thank you for having the foresight and generosity to finally open Foothills Park to all who want to enjoy the experience. From someone who has transitioned from “criminal” to “ambassador,” please KEEP Foothills Park open to all. It is a gem among our parks and open spaces in the Bay area. And especially during the COVID epidemic, the park provides a healthy and relatively safe communal activity. Jeffrey Englander MD Attending Physician, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Clinical Professor, Affiliated Department of Orthopedic Surgery/ Division of PMR Stanford University School of Medicine englander.jeffrey@gmail.com Cell 408 499 9754 From:Allan Seid To:CHOpinion CHOpinion Subject:Fwd: Los Angeles Times - CASTE Date:Sunday, January 23, 2022 6:15:35 PM Attachments:logo.png article-close-btn.png next-section@2x.png previous-section@2x.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://enewspaper.latimes.com/desktop/latimes/default.aspx? token=42e23962a5d74614be16bae3d62d13e7&utm_id=47195&sfmc_id=464613 3&edid=eaa0d4c1-c4fd-465d-95a2-80b3424cdc93 Pages Calendar TV Listings Food Comics Advertising Spadea Parade From:Tony Caruthers To:Council, City Subject:Distinct blonde Date:Sunday, January 23, 2022 10:35:32 AM Attachments:image(1) Some people who received this message don't often get email from tonycaruzz@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Notice how King Kong was looking for a distinct blonde lady & O.J. Simpson kept quiet during the trial & ended up seeing lots of financial wrongful deaths...Zuck is being trained... From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:January 24, 2022 Council Meeting, Item #1" Human Relations Commission Date:Saturday, January 22, 2022 4:21:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ​Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302 January 22, 2022 Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 JANUARY 24, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1HUMAAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Dear City Council: A review of the Conflict of Interest forms 700 (Statements ofEconomic Interest) for the members of the Human RelationsCommission reveals that three of the Commissioners have notfiled their annual or assuming office statements due last year. You can search the City Clerk's website for these formsalphabetically by name of filer, or alphabetically under thecategory Department for the name of the Commission. Michelle Kraus, Daryl Savage, and Kaloma Smith have not filedtheir forms. The fine for not filing is $10 a day, and fines for statementsnot filed more than 30 days late cannot be waived. The provision was adopted by the voters in June 1974 and wasamended last year solely to remove gender specific language. When will the delinquent statements be filed? When will the City Clerk collect the thousands of dollars infines? Government Code Section 91013 91013. (a) If any person files an original statement or report after any deadline imposed by this act, the person shall, in addition to any other penalties or remedies established by this act, be liable in the amount of ten dollars ($10) per day after the deadline until the statement or report is filed, to the officer with whom the statement or report is required to be filed. Liability need not be enforced by the filing officer if on an impartial basis the filing officer determines that the late filing was not willful and that enforcement of the liability will not further the purposes of the act, except that no liability shall be waived if a statement or report is not filed within 30 days for a statement of economic interest, other than a candidate’s statement filed pursuant to Section 87201, five days for a campaign statement required to be filed 12 days before an election, and 10 days for all other statements or reports, after the filing officer has sent specific written notice of the filing requirement. (b) If any person files a copy of a statement or report after any deadline imposed by this act, the person shall, in addition to any other penalties or remedies established by this chapter, be liable in the amount of ten dollars ($10) per day, starting 10 days, or 5 days in the case of a campaign statement required to be filed 12 days before an election, after the officer has sent specific written notice of the filing requirement and until the statement is filed. (c) The officer shall deposit any funds received under this section into the general fund of the jurisdiction of which the filing officer is an officer. Liability under this section shall not exceed the cumulative amount stated in the late statement or report, or one hundred dollars ($100), whichever is greater. (Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 50, Sec. 239. (AB 378) Effective January 1, 2022. Note: This section was added on June 4, 1974, by initiative Prop. 9.) Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock From:mark weiss To:Council, City Cc:Jeff LaMere; Tom DuBois (tom.dubois@gmail.com); Alison Cormack; Winter Dellenbach; Drekmeier, Peter; Diane Reklis; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; melissa baten caswell; Megan Swezey Fogarty; ladoris@judgecordell.com; Jason Miller; Don Austin; Camille Townsend; James Aram; Yolanda Conaway; Andrew Hargadon; Mitch Stephens; bill mitchell; hansdelannoy599@gmail.com; Bret Baird; Doug Keare; Kristy Blackburn; David Kiefer; Ken Dauber; Greg Hulbert; Greg Zlotnick; Matt Gonzalez; Cohen Steve; Michael A. McFaul; Argumedo, Leonel; nia taylor; Brian Evans; rick eymer; eric cohen; Geoffrey Gibbs; Ken Arnold; Jonathan Rosenberg; Eric Rosenblum; Summa, Doria; Carolyn Digovich; Katy Jacobs; Robert Leland; Carol Mullin; Gregory Nerland; Matt Maltz; Brian Moore; Holman, Karen (external); Kathy Jordan; Tommy Jordan; gwen crawford Subject:Re: we don"t need no stinkin" gym Date:Saturday, January 22, 2022 2:47:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am putting the email conversation I had with Bill Johnson in order: The email they sent me, my email response to Bill, his response to me, my response to his response. Feel free to spread or publish as you like. On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:41 AM OnlineEditor@paloaltoonline.com <OnlineEditor@paloaltoonline.com> wrote: Thank you for your participation in our Town Square forum. Due to concerns about your previous comment(s) and violations of our terms of use, for the indefinite future your comments will be placed in a queue for review by a moderator before being made live on the site. Review normally is done within two hours of posting and you will receive an email notification when it has been published. On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 12:44 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Why in the world? I post with my name. Everything is backed by fact. I spoke about public figures. I did not use offensive language. Here is my post. I am happy to provide references to EACH point. And btw I filed a complaint about Molly Stump to the California Bar, and they don't seem to disagree with me. Under the law, which Molly Stump either is ignorant to or else willfully ignores (or both), there was no reason for Keith Reckdahl to recuse himself. He has no personal or financial interest in Castilleja. Michael Aleheck, meanwhile, has numerous financial and personal conflicts. As Rita Vhrel mentioned above, Alcheck's family has been a major donor to Castilleja for decades, because Alcheck's sister - and possibly mother - attended Castilleja. This can be confirmed by looking at Castilleja Annual Reports and cannot be in debate. Alcheck's neice(s) also attend Castilleja, and despite strenuous objections on his part, Alcheck and/or his wife was spotted on Castilleja campus, appearing to tour the school on behalf of his daughter(s) -- because it would have been illegal for him to have met with Castilleja otherwise without disclosure, right? Prior to Alcheck, there also was Asher Woldfagel, who was serving as a *Trustee* of Castilleja while voting on Castilleja matters. Woldfagel claimed he also consulted Stump and he says she advised him that not only did he not need to recuse himself, but he also didn't need to disclose the conflict. As a reminder, a Trustee is a legal and financial fiduciary to an organization - -it is hard to imagine a more direct conflict. Conflicts of interest are killing democracy in our town. This is not a political issue - it is an issue of fairness. It is the obligation of our elected leadership to set the tone of integrity, but they themselves come with dirty hands. Council members who work for Alphabet and/or own large amounts of GOOG stock (Cormack? Dubois?) never reveal the potential conflict when voting on matters that impact large Palo Alto-based employers like Google/Nest. They 100% of the time deny any *potential* conflict - a falsehood. Fairness, transparency, and accountability matter. Palo Alto's Planning Commission have none, allowing big money interests like Castilleja to take co ntrol. We deserve better! Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:21 PM To: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Hi Rebecca, Unfortunately, everything you post isn't factual and you make some rather reckless assertions with incorrect information. Your post citing Asher Woldfagel's service on the commission while he was a trustee is the most recent example. You accuse him of a conflict that didn't exist and you incorrectly accuse Molly Stump of rendering an improper opinion regarding that conflict. Your post after the Page fire about the PAFD response to the earlier fire down the street was also completely wrong. I was at the scene of both fires and personally witnessed the large response that took place at the earlier fire. You've got some great insights and valid criticisms on a lot of issues, but your effectiveness is diminished when you make inaccurate or exaggerated statements, especially when they impune the integrity of someone else. (You privately did the same to me when you somehow had the idea that I had some business or personal relationship with Pat Burt.) Finally, the fact that your comments are now subject to review doesn't mean you are being censored. Every comment on Town Square is subject to review, editing and deletion. It's a condition for posting that many, many commenting sites have, as I'm sure you know. Happy to discuss further if you'd like. Best, Bill William S. Johnson Publisher, Palo Alto Weekly President & CEO, Embarcadero Media 450 Cambridge Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.326.8210 650.223.6505 (direct) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg<rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:25 AM Subject: Re: Bill, seriously? To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com> Bill, I am a member of the Bar in good standing and everything I said was truthful to the best of my ability and understanding. I will go through YOUR falsehoods below. Wow, you sure drink Kool-aid. You are supposed to be a journalist. Most of this has been confirmed by the Post as well. But you don't report anything that doesn't confirm your world view. You should be ashamed of yourself. Fortunately, there is a growing number of people who see this in you and your rag. You can ban me from your little walled garden, but even the conservative folks whom you think have your back no longer think much of you. I'm sure you don't see this, because, again, you see nothing that does not comply with your worldview. Here I go. On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:21 PM Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com> wrote: Hi Rebecca, Unfortunately, everything you post isn't factual and you make some rather reckless assertions with incorrect information. Your post citing Asher Woldfagel's service on the commission while he was a trustee is the most recent example. You accuse him of a conflict that didn't exist *Actually, Asher AGREED that the conflict existed. He actually ate a lot of crow about it. The ONLY thing I got wrong, according to Asher, is the TIMING of his board service. Everything else I said was accurate. You are not an attorney and you NEVER consult expert sources. I was a journalist for many years. I always would call a third party expert for their opinion on the matter about which I was writing. You never do that and instead take Ed Shikada and Molly Stump's word as truth. You will eat crow because Molly will be taken down, and there are people putting together a very strong lawsuit against Ed Shikada. Think I am lying? Of course you do. But the truth ultimately rises to the surface. Here's a tip, Bill: Next time, why don't you contact an expert on conflicts law from Stanford Law School or even my law school, Harvard. I'm sure a prof would be happy to educate you. Or is it that you are afraid to be proven wrong? You run your newspaper like a gossip rag. and you incorrectly accuse Molly Stump of rendering an improper opinion regarding that conflict. * My accusation is based on the law, and I have been a licensed attorney who has practiced in the area for 29 years. If lawyers did not disagree, there would be no reason for litigation or courts. It is a joke that you would rely on a self-interested party for proof without consulting and/or quoting at least one non-involved third party expert. This is why your magazine is not considered serious journalism. You don't actually do journalism. Do you know about expert sources? Your post after the Page fire about the PAFD response to the earlier fire down the street was also completely wrong. I was at the scene of both fires and personally witnessed the large response that took place at the earlier fire. * You absolutely were not on the scene at Larry Page's house, as I was there for 3 hours and did not see you. I sure would have seen you on Bryant Street. I spoke to about 30 neighbors and also to about 20 fire fighters. I also have about 20 minutes of video on my phone backing every single word I said. I don't know what other fire you are talking about. There was one fire I wrote about and filmed. It was a three alarm fire, as firefighters told me on the scene (which I recorded). There were approximately 12 engines and 10 police trucks, and I was there from 7 PM to 10 PM. It was at one of the 12 houses owned or controlled by Larry Page one block from my home. The firefighters told me that they needed to stay overnight because they were afraid it would spread to the very large structure UNDERGROUND. Larry Page has scrubbed the internet of references to his underground bunker, but your own weekly covered its construction about 10 years ago. I learned about this from YOU. You've got some great insights and valid criticisms on a lot of issues, but your effectiveness is diminished when you make inaccurate or exaggerated statements, especially when they impune the integrity of someone else. (You privately did the same to me when you somehow had the idea that I had some business or personal relationship with Pat Burt.) It is cute that you think I care what you think about my effectiveness. I know you think a lot about my effectiveness, because if I were not so effective, you would not be so afraid of what I write. And btw good luck insisting that you and Pat Burt aren't friends. That's cute too. Finally, the fact that your comments are now subject to review doesn't mean you are being censored. Every comment on Town Square is subject to review, editing and deletion. It's a condition for posting that many, many commenting sites have, as I'm sure you know. What I know is that you will do whatever you can to impose your own world view on your readership. If you actually had the smallest amount of faith and confidence in your opinions, you would welcome opposing views. The fact that you censor my posts only confirms my thoughts about you. The response to speech is more speech. Real journalists welcome debate. You stifle it. You are losing credibility, because the harder you try to stifle disagreement with you, the more you erode your own credibility. Your lack of confidence in the veracity of your paper is showing. How about even mentioning the 2.5 years of potentially criminal Brown Act violations discovered and reported by the Post? Or do you deny that any violation of the Brown Act occurred? Did you speak to a Brown Act expert on it? Or, as I learned as an editor for the Harvard Law Review -- did you speak with at least 3 outside third party experts? Maybe your thorough research is why it is taking the story so long to land on your pages. Because certainly that would be newsworthy, yes? You may be proud of your stranglehold on public opinion here, but make no mistake - people are starting to recognize that actual newspapers do actual reporting, including consulting experts, filing records requests, and "going past the headlines." Some things never get obsolete. No need to discuss further, as your email made clear how you think and how you intend to run your weekly periodical. I will enjoy sharing it. Have a great weekend! Best, Rebecca Happy to discuss further if you'd like. Best, Bill Sent from my iPhone On Jan 22, 2022, at 2:45 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Rebecca I am forwarding per our conversation to 53 personal contacts plus the proverbial eyes of God searchable I guess with or without a public records request. Interesting year for Palo Alto attempt at self governance. Interesting how the conversations about taxing business – – venture capital unicorns corporations with valuations exceeding 1 billion or 1 trillion will dovetail with Mr. Arriaga wishing to ram another ego vanity project down our throats excuse the image at least it’s a box not a dick in a box so to speak with Castilleja again a giant hole or a concrete box and not a phallic tower cover their ears when we speak their virgin ears — Snap I might’ve taken one too many courses on beats poetry including Palo Alto is former TrackStar Lew Welch ring of bone so to speak he means the sound. Yes Free Press is dead here long live propagandist trysting of landlords millionaires billionaires and libraries only open 28% of the time Shabbat shalom Mark Weiss A reputable source told me that there is no need for me to question further whether Arriaga tampered with the agenda of the parks commission for the recent seating of new commissioners PSPS post script wired magazine reports that anybody who has ever run for public office is likely being tapped and hacked by Putin and his group of clever little Maybe they are the ones who have misspelled the billionaire landlord basketball star spelling he knows who we are talking about like Soren he has eyes everywhere and one ring a bone to bind or blind or take it to the whole basketball I mean Sent from my iPhone On Jan 20, 2022, at 8:54 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I apologize if anyone was offended by my quasi-literary reference to a 1948 movie written and directed by John Huston, that has shown several times at the Stanford Theatre. And I'm not opposed to a new gym or wellness center, just a tad cynical about our efforts at self-governance here. Modern gyms with proper HVAC systems likely are not offensive in the olfactory sense of the term. Mark Weiss PS I was not actually a "star" for Gunn Titans. I was a reserve guard who only played when our team was well ahead. The stars on our team were Kent Lockhart, Danny Brown, John Ehrlich, Phil Wessells, Andy Hargadon, Jerry Chang and Richard Nielsen. see also: https://markweiss86.com/2022/01/20/go-badgers/ On Thursday, December 16, 2021, 11:36:07 PM PST, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I'd like to see a group of pro-planet billionaires and 100x billionaires start buying up land, starting with Casti and Cub and Fry's and restore it to natural land, doubling our existing parkland-per-capita ratio (which lags our promise to self in our Comp Plan). And re-name Foothill Park for a Black person like Al Young or LaDoris Cordell. Mark Weiss former Gunn basketball star and 3x council candidate, dba Earthwise From:mark weiss To:Council, City Cc:Jeff LaMere; Tom DuBois (tom.dubois@gmail.com); Alison Cormack; Winter Dellenbach; Drekmeier, Peter; Diane Reklis; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; melissa baten caswell; Megan Swezey Fogarty; ladoris@judgecordell.com; Jason Miller; Don Austin; Camille Townsend; James Aram; Yolanda Conaway; Andrew Hargadon; Mitch Stephens; bill mitchell; hansdelannoy599@gmail.com; Bret Baird; Doug Keare; Kristy Blackburn; David Kiefer; Ken Dauber; Greg Hulbert; Greg Zlotnick; Matt Gonzalez; Cohen Steve; Michael A. McFaul; Argumedo, Leonel; nia taylor; Brian Evans; rick eymer; eric cohen; Geoffrey Gibbs; Ken Arnold; Jonathan Rosenberg; Eric Rosenblum; Summa, Doria; Carolyn Digovich; Katy Jacobs; Robert Leland; Carol Mullin; Gregory Nerland; Matt Maltz; Brian Moore; Holman, Karen (external); Kathy Jordan; Tommy Jordan; gwen crawford Subject:Re: we don"t need no stinkin" gym Date:Saturday, January 22, 2022 2:45:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Rebecca I am forwarding per our conversation to 53 personal contacts plus the proverbial eyes of God searchable I guess with or without a public records request. Interesting year for Palo Alto attempt at self governance. Interesting how the conversations about taxing business – – venture capital unicorns corporations with valuations exceeding 1 billion or 1 trillion will dovetail with Mr. Arriaga wishing to ram another ego vanity project down our throats excuse the image at least it’s a box not a dick in a box so to speak with Castilleja again a giant hole or a concrete box and not a phallic tower cover their ears when we speak their virgin ears — Snap I might’ve taken one too many courses on beats poetry including Palo Alto is former TrackStar Lew Welch ring of bone so to speak he means the sound. Yes Free Press is dead here long live propagandist trysting of landlords millionaires billionaires and libraries only open 28% of the time Shabbat shalom Mark Weiss A reputable source told me that there is no need for me to question further whether Arriaga tampered with the agenda of the parks commission for the recent seating of new commissioners PSPS post script wired magazine reports that anybody who has ever run for public office is likely being tapped and hacked by Putin and his group of clever little Maybe they are the ones who have misspelled the billionaire landlord basketball star spelling he knows who we are talking about like Soren he has eyes everywhere and one ring a bone to bind or blind or take it to the whole basketball I mean Sent from my iPhone On Jan 20, 2022, at 8:54 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I apologize if anyone was offended by my quasi-literary reference to a 1948 movie written and directed by John Huston, that has shown several times at the Stanford Theatre. And I'm not opposed to a new gym or wellness center, just a tad cynical about our efforts at self-governance here. Modern gyms with proper HVAC systems likely are not offensive in the olfactory sense of the term. Mark Weiss PS I was not actually a "star" for Gunn Titans. I was a reserve guard who only played when our team was well ahead. The stars on our team were Kent Lockhart, Danny Brown, John Ehrlich, Phil Wessells, Andy Hargadon, Jerry Chang and Richard Nielsen. see also: https://markweiss86.com/2022/01/20/go-badgers/ On Thursday, December 16, 2021, 11:36:07 PM PST, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I'd like to see a group of pro-planet billionaires and 100x billionaires start buying up land, starting with Casti and Cub and Fry's and restore it to natural land, doubling our existing parkland-per-capita ratio (which lags our promise to self in our Comp Plan). And re-name Foothill Park for a Black person like Al Young or LaDoris Cordell. Mark Weiss former Gunn basketball star and 3x council candidate, dba Earthwise From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; david pomaville; dallen1212@gmail.com; Daniel Zack; eappel@stanford.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; merazroofing@att.net; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Specialists now agree endemic ending- Sun. Jan. 16, 2022. Dr. John Campbell Date:Saturday, January 22, 2022 12:58:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:28 AM Subject: Fwd: Specialists now agree endemic ending- Sun. Jan. 16, 2022. Dr. John Campbell To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:12 AM Subject: Fwd: Specialists now agree endemic ending- Sun. Jan. 16, 2022. Dr. John Campbell To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:03 AM Subject: Fwd: Specialists now agree endemic ending- Sun. Jan. 16, 2022. Dr. John Campbell To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 2:02 AM Subject: Specialists now agree endemic ending- Sun. Jan. 16, 2022. Dr. John Campbell To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, January 21, 2022 To all- Here are two excellent videos by Dr. John Campbell. Dr. John Campbell in the UK for Sunday, January 16, 2022: Sorry, US TV network news. We are not all about to die. Watch this: You should just run Dr. Campbell every night, perhaps in addition to your normal news. His vids run around 25 minutes. Here he cites expert after expert in the UK who agree the pandemic is easing. New case numbers are falling. The story is just too complicated for the networks to attempt to cover it in five minutes. You put reporters on who have utterly no knowledge of the pandemic. People with rich Nazi affirmative action jobs who had part of a semester of Economics in a community college perhaps. Then 45 seconds of an expert. The result is mass confusion. Run Dr. Campbell instead of your often incorrect reporting on Covid. Ten minutes of excerpts from his daily video could fit within your nightly news broadcast. Then elimnate the soft, heart-warming piece you run at the end of your broadcast.. The American people need accurate information about the pandemic more than they need the little heart-warmers you run at the end of your broadcasts. I read the comments after his vids and all sorts of doctors and nurses watch him faithfully for good information. BTW, YouTube sent him a gold plaque in recognition of his having one million subscribers. That was weeks ago, so he has more now. Apparently one million is a significant number on YouTube. There is no doubt that the Covid pandemic is becoming endemic. Specialists now agree on endemic ending - YouTube Dr. Campbell for Wed. January 19, 2022: Wow. Here is a study of how many people over the past year or two died of Covid WITH NO OTHER UNDERLYING CAUSE. That is about 1/7 of the deaths that were related to Covid. Very impressive. This information had to be pried loose with a FOI request in the UK. Freedom of information revelation - YouTube January 19, 2022 The New York Times: Omicron is in retreat: The Morning: Omicron is in retreat - loran.harding@alumni.stanford.edu - Stanford Alumni Mail (google.com) LH- I wonder exactly what "endemic" means. It means always there, with flare ups now and then. Influenza, measles, the common cold, are all endemic. But because Covid, including Omicron, breaks through immunity from vaccinations and natural immuity confered by having been exposed to it or even having survived it, we will always be subject to infection and illness as long as it is around. Older populations, and those with co-morbidities, and those with both, are especially vulnerable to Covid. For that reason, I believe that older persons should probably continue with the protective measures recommended for all now: N95 Masks, social distancing, good ventilation, avoiding crowds, especially ones indoors, hand washing, vitamin D and zinc, good diet, good sleep. I HOPE that the federal government will continue to support the development of vaccines and boosters, if mainly for those people. Of course, also for those with surpressed immune systems from other causes- transplant pts., e.g. We know that older people are more subject to illness and death from influenza, and we urge them especially to get flu shots. Whether flu breaks through the immunity confered by flu shots I do not know. Point here is this: Our declaring Omicron to have become endemic should not involve letting our guard down completely. We still have a very vulnerable cohort in our population. It is starting to sound to me like "endemic" means the pandemic is over and life can return to normal. If that is what it means, life will be ending for a lot of older people and becoming more risky the older they get. They will also continue to die in disproportionate numbers from flu, so the effect would be additive. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Allan Seid To:DENNIS LEE Subject:Fwd: A Visionary Without a Country — ProPublica Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 2:22:46 PM Attachments:attachment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 2:17 PM Subject: A Visionary Without a Country — ProPublica To: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> https://www.propublica.org/article/a-visionary-without-a-country? utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations &utm_content=feature A Visionary Without a Country Celebrated scientist Joe Tsien retreated to China after his Georgia university and the U.S. government began investigating him. He says he’s a victim of anti-Asian discrimination, but key parts of his story don’t add up. Jan. 20, 5 a.m. EST Illustration by Ryan Melgar for ProPublica ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. This article was co-published with The Chronicle of Higher Education. On Sept. 9, 1999, David Letterman entertained millions of television viewers by riffing on a scientific breakthrough that had made an obscure Princeton assistant professor famous overnight. The late- night host’s top-10 list of “Term Paper Topics Written by Genius Mice” — including “A Sociological Study of Why Cats Suck” and “Outsmarting The Mousetrap: Just Take The Cheese Off Really, Really Fast” — saluted Joe Z. Tsien’s achievement in genetically engineering a mouse to learn faster and adapt better to changing conditions. As the years passed, Tsien’s fame faded. Then, like hundreds of other scientists at U.S. universities, he found himself in the crosshairs of a federal crackdown on China’s theft of American research and expertise. His employer, the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, and one of his main funders, the National Institutes of Health, accused him of failing to disclose positions and funding in China, as well as his participation in China’s lucrative — and controversial — Thousand Talents recruitment program. The university removed his endowed chair, reassigned him to a smaller lab, and blocked him from sending his genetically modified mice to a professor in Shanghai who wanted to study them. A naturalized U.S. citizen, the 59-year-old Tsien hasn’t been charged with any crime. But when he went to China to visit his ailing father in October 2019, FBI and Department of Homeland Security agents seized his laptop and two cellphones at Atlanta’s airport. Augusta University regarded Tsien as being absent from work without leave and stopped paying his salary. Tsien resigned the next month and sued the university for employment discrimination. He hasn’t returned to the U.S. for fear of being arrested. The federal purge has spurred criticism for ensnaring researchers who didn’t stray outside accepted practices and whose universities were or should have been aware of their foreign moonlighting. Tsien portrayed himself as one such casualty, and he emphatically denied allegations that he misled his university and federal authorities. Although the Georgia university system said that it disciplined him for “legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons,” he complained that he was singled out because he was Chinese. His treatment by federal agents and the medical college, he wrote, “makes me appreciate much better what Jewish people had suffered and felt under Hitler’s Nazi rule.” Tsien has attracted prominent sympathizers. “He is a terrific scientist, extremely well trained and really creative,” said Thomas Sudhof, a Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist at Stanford who has known Tsien for 20 years. “I believe he is 100% honest. Sometimes he is a bit overenthusiastic, and that may have gotten him into trouble occasionally. But he would be unlikely to commit any kind of infraction of the standard practices of science.” Augusta University records, Chinese media reports and obscure filings tucked away in Chinese and American courts, plus conversations with Tsien and his friends and colleagues in both countries, tell a more complicated story. They show that Tsien is far less a victim than he asserts, and that he concealed key aspects of his dealings, including efforts to seek and commercialize Chinese patents for American-funded research. The documents and Tsien’s associates depict him as an ambitious outsider in both his native and adopted countries, part schemer and part dreamer. There was no indication that he was aiming to help China or its government at the expense of the U.S. His goals appeared to be personal: to advance himself and his family. Tsien’s career spanned the arc of American higher education’s relationship with China. He flourished in an era when U.S. universities were eager to attract Chinese students and partner with Chinese institutions. The American schools looked to professors educated in China, like Tsien, to guide them. But as the U.S. perceived China as a growing economic threat, what American academia had once celebrated as fruitful collaborations came to be condemned as “conflicts of commitment,” and Tsien’s penchant for skirting the rules and undermining his own prospects caught up with him. Even before his downfall, his career was one of the more turbulent in the annals of neuroscience. Brilliant and charming, but quick to take offense and indifferent to other people’s opinions of his ideas, he tended to alienate powerful scientists and administrators whom he needed to cultivate. In the end, Tsien proved more adept at dealing with mice than men. People who know Tsien say his difficulty in reading social signals may stem from a disrupted childhood. The Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong’s brutal campaign to impose ideological purity, was the central event of Tsien’s youth. His family — his father was a clerk, his mother an accountant — was relocated from the city of Changzhou to a small village. “Those of us who come from the Cultural Revolution, we don’t have political skill,” said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity. “Not only him, me too. There’s a lack of skill in dealing with complex human relationships.” Still, Tsien made the best of his new surroundings. Roaming the countryside, “I became fascinated by how dragonflies can fly and suddenly stop in midair, or how ants navigate and search for food and then find their way home.” His high school, run by a fabric factory primarily for employees’ children, was less than stellar, but he supplemented it with after- school classes in math and physics, and he passed the national college entrance exam. As a sophomore biology major at East China Normal University in Shanghai, he helped out in a neurophysiology lab. The “pop” of pigeons’ neurons firing in electrical pulses, converted to sound by an oscilloscope, “made me hooked to the mystery of the brain.” After graduating in 1984, he became a research assistant on a beer fermentation project. “My daily duty was to inoculate yeasts in the evening and taste beers in the morning.” He took advantage of the nap time allotted for hangover recovery to study English and apply to U.S. graduate schools. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 1990, followed by postdoctoral study at Columbia under Eric Kandel, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize, and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Susumu Tonegawa, who had already won one. He married another China-born researcher in 1987, and they had two sons before divorcing in 2011. At Columbia and MIT, Tsien studied memory and learning by manipulating genes in rodents’ brains. His first breakthrough came when he developed a method to delete a particular gene in a region of the brain that was vital to memory. Mice without the gene proved more forgetful. Moving to Princeton in 1997, Tsien took a different approach — zeroing in on a gene called NR2B that was believed to be related to memory and injecting it into mice. The result surpassed his expectations. In August 1999, he announced he had created a smarter mouse, which he nicknamed “Doogie,” after Doogie Howser, the precocious hero of a television medical drama. His research made the cover of Time. The New York Times, ABC News, the BBC and other media hailed his achievement, and the journal Science chose it as one of the top 10 breakthroughs of 1999. Joe Z. Tsien in 1999 with a mouse he genetically engineered at Princeton University. His achievement was hailed in the media. Laura Pedrick People in China noticed too. Tsien’s alma mater, East China Normal, awarded him $300,000 in 2001 for his “imaginative research on learning and memory” and for “promoting academic exchange and collaboration between ECNU and Princeton neurobiologists.” Tsien then collaborated on research at East China Normal, which reimbursed his travel expenses. In 2002, it supplied him with a 1,200-square-foot apartment in Shanghai, according to filings in his divorce case. He stayed there when he was in Shanghai, and his parents lived there. He also brought some of East China Normal’s faculty and students to Princeton as visiting scholars. Shirley Tilghman, then Princeton’s president, congratulated him on “this major recognition from your own university” and praised his work in a commencement address. Given Tilghman’s tributes and his high-profile publications in prestigious journals, he seemed like a shoo-in when he came up for tenure in 2004. Instead, the confidential proceedings became contentious, according to faculty members who requested anonymity. Many colleagues in the molecular biology department backed Tsien, but some complained that he oversold his research findings or didn’t care enough about teaching. Tsien said he received favorable evaluations from students. Tsien believes that his mentors Kandel and Tonegawa, whom Princeton would likely have consulted, weighed in against him. Tonegawa had been upset that Tsien, who had begun genetically modifying mice at MIT, did not list him as a co-author on the “smart mouse” article. Also, against Tonegawa’s wishes, Tsien had taken transgenic mice from MIT to Princeton to launch his own lab. “This project started while he was here,” Tonegawa told the Newark Star-Ledger in 1999. “MIT has at least partial ownership. What is made in the lab usually belongs in the lab. … I couldn’t say [Tsien] is one of the most collegial or cooperative persons.” When contacted by ProPublica, Tonegawa declined to comment. “Since Joe Tsien left my lab years ago we have not been in touch at all,” he wrote. Tsien said that Tonegawa didn’t deserve credit and was jealous of his acclaim. Kandel did not respond to requests for comment. Two Princeton faculty members said they had heard that Kandel and Tonegawa opposed Tsien. “Joe seems to have a pattern of exceptionally good relationships with important people, and then having them end up feeling betrayed by him in some way,” one said. Ultimately, Tsien was denied tenure. It was a devastating blow. “I have learned what it meant to be the victim of your own success,” he said. Years later in Georgia, nostalgic for the scene of his greatest triumph, he would tie Princeton Tigers balloons to the cages of his genetically altered mice. The same accomplishments that had seemed to assure Tsien’s future at Princeton made him a coveted free agent. David Farb, chairman of pharmacology at Boston University’s medical school, lured him there with a professorship at a “very high” salary, a newly renovated lab and at least $750,000 in research funding that had once been ticketed for Farb’s own work. “I was in my glory,” Farb recalled. “Everyone said, ‘I can’t believe you recruited someone like Joe Tsien from Princeton.’” Tsien demonstrated a new device for measuring brain signals in mice in 2006 to future Nobel laureates Edvard Moser, second from left, May-Britt Moser and John O’Keefe. Courtesy of Dr. Longnian Lin Opinions shifted when Tsien began quarreling with medical school administrators over how much of the cost of housing his mice should be borne by BU and how much by his NIH grants. Tsien heightened the tensions by accusing BU officials of discriminating against him because of his race, a claim that Farb didn’t believe. “I thought it was a cheap shot.” The animal experimentation committee criticized Tsien for leaving mice too long in the lab rather than returning them to the vivarium. “He was a big shot,” Farb said. “He felt like, ‘Why are they bothering me with this trivia?’” Farb advised Tsien to be more vigilant, and the pharmacology chair appointed a compliance officer to monitor Tsien’s lab and expenditures. “I felt very badly” about these conflicts, Farb said. “I thought he was a good faculty member. For myself personally, I was being demonized as this department chair who brought in somebody who was spending all this money. People who had been strong supporters of the recruitment turned against it.” Tsien said that his disagreements with the BU administration were “minor,” and he didn’t recall the details. Regarding the mice, he said they had to be kept undisturbed in the neural recording rooms for days to measure their long-term memory. The committee disrupted the experiments for several weeks, he said. “The event left a bad taste.” Tsien’s frequent travels to Shanghai likely magnified the resentment. Many researchers in his lab came from China and were funded by its government. Farb wondered about the relationship, but he decided that on the whole it benefited the school. “I’d see the papers published and try to figure out, ‘Is this a pharmacology department publication?’” Farb said. “Is it the Shanghai institute” at East China Normal where Tsien helped train faculty? “I didn’t know. Are they the same mice? Nobody was really asking at the time. Maybe they were totally separate. It was a Wild West. I was looking at it as a good thing. Joe is giving us a bridge to a big lab in China. Talented people are coming to the department on their own money. Who was I to raise questions? What am I going to say but, ‘Congratulations, Joe, you’re a great hire, you have four big NIH grants.’ I liked him. Some people didn’t.” Founded in 1828, the Medical College of Georgia is part of the state university system and one of the nation’s oldest and largest medical schools. It capitalized on Tsien’s discontent, recruiting him to Augusta in 2007. Tsien received a $250,000 salary, a $2.5 million startup fund for his research and up to $300,000 a year to cover the cost of 1,100-1,200 mouse cages. The key draw was a $10 million commitment from the Georgia Research Alliance, a nonprofit created by state leaders to boost the economy through scientific discovery. It paid for a $3.6 million lab designed to monitor brain activity in mice, including eight recording rooms. Tsien in 2018 at the Department of Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. The school recruited him in 2007. Phil Jones/Courtesy of Augusta University Tsien was named one of the research alliance’s Eminent Scholars and appointed co-director of a new Brain and Behavior Discovery Institute at the Medical College of Georgia. He was given funding to hire three junior and three senior faculty members. His office adjoining the lab was cluttered with books, awards and mementoes, including a cage containing a battery-powered, furry mouse with blinking red eyes — an allusion to the discovery that made him famous. The Georgia Research Alliance’s support also included $1 million to develop a colony of transgenic rhesus monkeys in China. Tsien planned to replicate his experiments on intelligence and memory with monkeys, which are closer to humans in evolutionary terms than mice are. But it was hard to obtain approval in the U.S. to genetically alter primates, and monkeys were cheaper in China. So he planned to inject genes into monkeys at the Banna Primate Model Animal Center in the Xishuangbanna prefecture of Yunnan province in southwest China. He would then ship half of the monkeys to Georgia, where the alliance had allotted $500,000 for a second colony, for more experiments. He described the Banna center as an important research institute with roots going back to the early 1980s. The medical college backed the international project. “We believe that his efforts in China will prove to be mutually beneficial,” then- Dean Douglas Miller wrote to the Chinese Natural Science Foundation in 2010. “Therefore we endorse, with great enthusiasm, Dr. Tsien’s collaborative research projects” at Banna. Tsien’s China connections aided other professors at the medical college. Two colleagues had shown that curcumin, a yellow substance in curry powder, could help in treating cerebral hemorrhages. But there was a practical barrier; curcumin wasn’t easily absorbed in the stomach. “You have to eat a lot of curry to get the benefit,” one of the scientists said. Tsien put them in touch with researchers at East China Normal, who manufactured more soluble curcumin compounds. East China Normal and Augusta jointly patented the discovery. The university’s then-president, Ricardo Azziz, valued Tsien’s network in China. Like many presidents at the time, Azziz was eager to increase his university’s visibility and attract international students by gaining a foothold there. He approached Tsien, described the goal of building a globally competitive university and urged him to help. Tsien began reaching out to colleagues in China, paving the way for Azziz to meet them. In the next few years, Tsien accompanied Azziz on three trips to China. He gave “very clear advice about what would benefit our institution,” Azziz recalls. “He kept the interests of our university as his focus.” Tsien acted as interpreter and cultural guide, making sure that the president didn’t commit any faux pas. At his suggestion, Azziz brought gifts for their hosts, such as coffee mugs or hats with the university’s logo — but not clocks, which in China are considered bad luck. Since Azziz found the expensive chopsticks supplied at formal dinners too slippery, Tsien began carrying a pair of cheap disposable chopsticks in his pocket. When he thought no one was looking, he would swap them in for Azziz. The chopsticks diplomacy paid off. A partnership with the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine led to the 2014 opening of a Confucius Institute on the Augusta campus. Partly funded and staffed by China, the institute not only taught acupuncture and other techniques, but it also offered instruction in martial arts and Chinese music, and sponsored events for the Mid-Autumn Festival. Concentrating on his brain research, and without expertise in Chinese medicine, Tsien had no desire to be the institute’s founding director. But Azziz couldn’t find anyone else, and Tsien reluctantly accepted the position. His second wife, whom he had met while she was a grants coordinator at East China Normal, became the institute’s global affairs coordinator. In addition, Augusta and East China Normal signed a five-year “friendship and cooperation” agreement in 2016, envisioning student and teacher exchanges, joint conferences and cultural events. Tsien’s talents also impressed the U.S. Army. John Parmentola, U.S. Army director for research and laboratory management from 2001 to 2009, was seeking to expand its neuroscience research. After reading Tsien’s 2007 Scientific American cover article, “The Memory Code,” Parmentola invited him to speak at its science conference. Tsien then appeared in a video funded by Parmentola’s office, “The Science of Victory,” about the importance of research to the military. The relationship led to the Pentagon funding research by Tsien about how blast injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder affect the brain. “He’s clearly a gifted and talented individual, and that should really be the focus of who he is and why his work is so important,” Parmentola said. In his Georgia office, Tsien proudly displayed a coin Parmentola had given him, which commemorated his speech at the Army conference. Even on his visits to China, Tsien couldn’t hide his affection for his adopted country. To the apparent dismay of Chinese officials, he rhapsodized about American freedoms, especially the rights to vote and to own a gun. Tsien had collected a dozen guns — handguns, pistols, shotguns and an antique Soviet rifle — and he liked to shoot at a range on weekends. “You don’t ever have to worry about the government coming after you,” Tsien would tell the Chinese administrators. The Chinese “were getting uptight,” said Shawn Vincent, a former vice president for partnerships at the university’s affiliated health system, with whom Tsien also went to China. “You could see the government people look at each other. … Their eyes all got big. I just thought he couldn’t necessarily read the room.” When Vincent warned him to be careful, Tsien laughed it off. Despite his contributions as a China liaison, Tsien’s status at the medical college depended on his research. Unfortunately, one of his big projects — the monkey colonies — was misfiring, both in China and in the U.S. Several Banna researchers, who he had trained, left for a neuroscience institute in Shanghai. The Georgia facility needed more funding, but the economic downturn and increasing animal rights protests against monkey research doomed it. At the same time, his scientific curiosity was leading him deeper into the mysteries of the mind. His attention shifted from the genetic experiments that had made his reputation to the basic design underlying intelligence and memory. His recordings of electrical impulses in mouse brains stimulated by various traumatic events showed patterns of activity among groups of neurons, which he called “cliques.” One day in 2014, he had an epiphany: A simple mathematical equation could describe how the cliques organized themselves into the building blocks of brain computation — and ultimately explain how the brain generates abstract concepts and knowledge. The implications of what he called the “Theory of Connectivity” bowled him over. Staking his career on this sweeping theory, though, was a considerable risk. It was outside his specialty and hard to prove. Sure enough, top journals such as Nature, Science and Cell rejected his manuscripts, although they were ultimately published in other respected peer-reviewed journals. His pivot from practice to theory affected his research funding, much to the university’s consternation. His grants dropped from $1,657,981 in 2009 to $536,350 in 2017, according to the university. “Joe had a lot of grant dollars at one point,” Vincent said. “Some of those were starting to go away. I do remember … whispers” and words of caution from colleagues. “If you want to be safe, you stay within the guardrails.” Tsien was vulnerable for another reason. Although he stepped down as soon as a successor was found, his brief time running the Confucius Institute on campus was unlikely to endear him to the U.S. government. The institutes were starting to draw criticism as outlets for Chinese government propaganda or potential listening posts for spies. Augusta’s institute sparked immediate pushback from officials at nearby Fort Gordon, which was becoming a nerve center for U.S. intelligence. The National Security Agency had a major operation there, and in December 2013, the U.S. Army Cyber Command announced Fort Gordon as its new headquarters. “We got pressure from friends at Fort Gordon who were concerned about our growing ties with China,” recalls Azziz, who resigned in 2015. “I explained this was a cultural thing.” The university couldn’t afford to alienate Fort Gordon officials. Its 9,600 students include about 285 veterans and active-duty service members whose tuition is subsidized by the U.S. government, and its Military & Veteran Services office helps them adjust to college. Its fast-growing master’s program in intelligence and security studies benefits from its proximity to NSA and Cyber Command. Fort Gordon’s dismay was echoed nationwide as attitudes toward China shifted. The number of Confucius Institutes nationwide has plummeted from more than 100 in 2017 to 24, according to the National Association of Scholars. Augusta’s shut down in 2019. As for the friendship agreement with East China Normal, nothing came of it, and it was not renewed. As the relationship between Beijing and Washington grew increasingly tense, federal agencies that funded research began scrutinizing applicants with ties to China. NIH, which had long encouraged collaborations with China, learned from the FBI in 2016 that an Asian faculty member at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston had broken the rules by showing federal grant proposals he was reviewing to other researchers. The NIH examined grant applications and found that some researchers it funded weren’t disclosing dual appointments at Chinese universities. In August 2018, NIH director Francis Collins wrote to universities and academic medical centers, cautioning them that grant applicants and awardees “must disclose support coming from foreign governments or other foreign entities.” Augusta University, which relied on the NIH for 60% of its research funding from 2016 through 2021, had to pay attention. In March 2018, the dean of the medical college, David Hess, told Tsien that the Department of Homeland Security had been asking about his frequent travel to China. Hess officially eliminated Tsien’s brain research institute, which the university had stopped funding in 2013, and laid off his administrative assistant. The following February, Tsien was called into Hess’ office. The dean read aloud a letter to Tsien from the university’s vice president of human resources. “Recently it has come to our attention that you appear to currently hold two employment positions in China that create the potential for conflicts of interest,” the letter stated. The university was launching an “immediate investigation.” While it was undertaken, the university banned him from business travel and working off-campus. Hess also instructed Tsien to fill out the university’s required annual conflict-of-interest form. In his more than a decade at the medical college, Tsien had never completed the form, which asked about outside income, activities and business ownership. And, apparently, no supervisor had reminded him to. Hess said that oversight of the forms was divided between several offices, and that most faculty members filled them out. “If I go 80 mph on the highway and no one catches me, I’m still breaking the law,” Hess said. Tsien said that he didn’t receive the conflict-of-interest forms. Numerous articles in Chinese media about him cited affiliations that — if accurate — should likely have been disclosed on university forms. One said he was a Thousand Talents Program expert and a funded professor at East China Normal University, and that a team led by Tsien had developed a drug screening device that was recognized by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security and displayed at the Interpol General Assembly held in Beijing in September 2017. In 2018, Tsien was described as a director of a neuroscience research center in Xi’an. As the university’s investigation of Tsien’s connections to China ramped up, other scientists’ careers were also being derailed. Since November 2018, when then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “China Initiative” to combat economic espionage, the Department of Justice has criminally charged at least 25 researchers who were not employed by industry. Most of them worked at universities and allegedly committed fraud or made false statements in connection with unreported income or affiliations in China. Some of these cases have fallen apart, spurring criticism that they amounted to racial profiling. In July, the Biden administration dropped charges against five visiting researchers who had been accused of hiding ties to China’s military. After the trial of Anming Hu, a former University of Tennessee at Knoxville nanotechnology professor accused of hiding his part-time teaching position in Beijing from NASA, ended in a hung jury, the Department of Justice sought a retrial. In September, a federal district court judge acquitted him. Judge Thomas Varlan ruled that Hu did not intend to deceive NASA, which is restricted by Congress from funding collaborations with China, and that there was “no evidence that NASA did not receive exactly the type of research that it bargained for.” The university then offered to rehire him. In another setback for the China Initiative, it was reported last week that federal prosecutors are expected to drop charges against Gang Chen, an engineering professor at MIT who had been accused of concealing ties to the Chinese government and its talent recruitment programs. The Justice Department did achieve a notable triumph in December when a federal jury convicted Charles Lieber, former chair of Harvard’s chemistry department, of lying about his participation in the Thousand Talents Program. Lieber’s lawyers have said he plans to appeal. While the criminal cases have attracted the bulk of media attention, actions by federal agencies that fund academic research, and by universities themselves, have affected far more professors. In April 2021, Michael Lauer, NIH deputy director for extramural research, told Congress that more than 100 scientists had been removed from the “NIH ecosystem.” By November, NIH had expressed concern to institutions about 228 scientists with possible problems related to foreign interference. Of these, 191, or 84%, were found to be linked to a “serious violation.” More than 60%, a total of 141, were excluded from receiving NIH grants, including 90 who were fired or quit their jobs. Only 11, or 5%, were cleared. More than three-fourths of the 228 scientists identified themselves as Asian, and China was the “country of concern” in 210 cases, or 92%. Almost half of the cases originated with NIH; universities self-disclosed nearly 30%; and the rest were referred by the Department of Justice or FBI. Lauer told ProPublica that NIH does not discriminate against researchers of Chinese descent. Most of NIH’s cases involve scientists born in China, he said, because China’s aggressive brain- gain programs such as Thousand Talents offer expatriates generous stipends, cutting-edge labs and other incentives for full-time or part- time work at Chinese universities. Thousand Talents contracts give the Chinese university “at least some rights” to inventions developed in the U.S., and they may also require participating scientists to keep their work in China secret, according to a 2019 report by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Of the 228 scientists identified by NIH, 124, or 54%, allegedly did not disclose funding from talent programs. Despite pushback from Asian American rights groups and some universities, Lauer expects the focus on China-related conflicts of interest to continue. “There was no change going from Obama to Trump, and we aren’t seeing any change from Trump to Biden,” he said. Both parties in Congress, he said, have encouraged NIH to be aggressive. Proposed legislation would restrict federal grant recipients from participating in Chinese talent recruitment programs. Lauer declined to discuss specific professors. Still, he acknowledged that many of them came to NIH’s attention because, far from concealing their Chinese backing, they credited it in their published articles. “It’s actually in their scientific papers, but their [U.S.] universities didn’t notice it,” he said. Lauer insisted that NIH still encourages international partnerships. “There’s a difference between collaboration and deception,” he said. Some China-born professors don’t trust NIH to recognize that difference. One morning last October in the halls of the Medical College of Georgia, a scientist from China lamented the crackdown. “Nothing we can do,” she sighed. “Nothing we can do. I’m a very conservative person. I follow the rules. I do not have any collaboration in China.” She said she still had Chinese researchers in her lab — for now. “Everyone is scared. The U.S. is no longer welcoming them.” If they go elsewhere, she said, American science would suffer. “Most Chinese students work very hard. No matter how good your ideas are, you need good people.” Faculty opinion was divided about Tsien. “What happened to Joe was awful, and it speaks to the climate here,” one said. “If they can squeeze someone of his stature out, what would they do to me?” Another said that Tsien doomed himself by denouncing the investigation and “throwing bombs” at administrators. Tsien wasn’t the only neuroscientist at the medical college with ties to China. Professor Darrell Brann agreed to participate in a Chinese recruitment program, the Hebei Foreign Experts Hundred Talents Plan, as a visiting professor at North China Science and Technology University, for about $70,000, according to Chinese media reports. Brann reported receiving $36,500 from North China in 2017 and 2018 on his Augusta conflict-of-interest form. Tsien’s lawsuit cited the university’s failure to investigate Brann, who is white, for joining the talents program as evidence of anti- Asian discrimination against Tsien. “Dr. Brann was not the subject of a conflict of interest investigation because such investigation was not warranted,” the university responded in a filing. Brann declined to comment, but a person close to him described what had happened. A post-doctoral researcher in Brann’s lab at Augusta had connected Brann with a former mentor at North China. Brann then became associated with North China, which eventually asked him to run a major lab. Uncomfortable with this larger role, Brann ended the relationship before receiving the entire $70,000. Oil paintings of the deans of the medical college dating back to the long-bearded Lewis Ford, who later served as a surgeon in the Confederate Army, lined the hallway to Hess’ office. Hess, a defendant in Tsien’s lawsuit, declined to talk about him or the case. Still, he supported Brann. “I’m sure he followed the rules,” the dean said. Hess acknowledged that NIH’s attitude toward collaborations with China has changed, and that the college’s success is tied to NIH funding: “If those grants are taken away … we have to make it up.” But that very reliance, he said, ensures that the college doesn’t discriminate against researchers of Chinese descent because they bring in one-third of the school’s NIH money. “There’s no discrimination against our Chinese American scientists, I assure you,” Hess said. “We’d be crazy to. They’re super productive.” As the allegations against him accumulated, Tsien swatted them away, denying that he had taken any undisclosed income from China. The affiliations uncovered by university investigators, he insisted, were unpaid, were speculation by Chinese media or were partnerships under his international Brain Decoding Project — another of his big ideas. As for Thousand Talents membership, he acknowledged the title but not the money. “I did not take personal financial support or talent research funding from it,” he told Augusta. A university in Yunnan, he said, applied to Thousand Talents on his behalf around 2011, offering him a three-month visiting professorship. He declined the position and arranged for the funds to go to the Banna institute. These defenses were effective. In its final report on his case in December 2019, a month after Tsien resigned, Augusta conceded that it couldn’t substantiate that he had accepted money from China. And while it contended that his frequent travel to China — 12 trips totaling 228 days from July 1, 2016, to Jan. 31, 2019 — had affected his research funding and productivity, it acknowledged that the medical college had approved his absences. The case against him came down to six patents in China on which Tsien was listed as an inventor under his Chinese name, Zhuo Qian. The patent applications were filed without Augusta’s approval between 2011 and 2015. Reviews by the university’s Office of Innovation Commercialization and by an outside patent attorney it consulted found that these patents were “identical to or derivative from” Tsien’s research at Augusta and that it was likely that he had “participated in the filing of the Chinese patents and provided the information necessary.” And since Augusta, as his employer, owned or co-owned the research, and the university had not been told about the Chinese patents, his actions allegedly constituted theft of intellectual property. If he had not quit, the report concluded, he would have been fired. The patents related to a technique of measuring and imaging changes in heart and respiration rates remotely, without attaching sensors. Meng Li and Fang Zhao, two researchers in Tsien’s lab, developed the technique under his guidance, with funding from the Georgia Research Alliance, as part of his effort to determine how long mice remember traumatic events such as falling or being shaken in a jar. The technique was patented in the U.S., with Tsien, Meng Li, Fang Zhao and Yi Qian, the director of the Banna Biomedical Research Institute, listed as inventors. Augusta University and the Banna institute co-own that patent. The Chinese patents did not mention the medical college. All six were co-owned by the Banna Dadu Yunhai Intelligent Technology Development Co. The Banna Biomedical Research Institute shared five. So did the Shanghai Institute of Criminal Science and Technology, which took an interest in the research because technology that can identify variability in physiological rates could be useful for improving lie detectors. Like Tsien, Fang Zhao was listed as an inventor on all six Chinese patents. Her husband, Meng Li, was listed on five. By 2019, when the university was investigating Tsien, they had left his lab and were working at Harvard University. One day, two FBI agents knocked on the door of their apartment in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and interviewed them for 45 minutes, mostly about Tsien. The agents politely asked about his travel to China, focusing on the patents. Did he apply for them? Had he commercialized them? Was Zhuo Qian his Chinese name? “We answered all the questions we know,” Fang wrote in an email. “However, this incident made us feel uncomfortable.” The U.S. Department of Justice declined comment on Tsien, saying that it does not discuss active investigations, or confirm or deny whether there is an investigation. Tsien said that he wasn’t involved in seeking the China patents. In a carefully phrased response to Augusta, he wrote that the Chinese institutions had sought the patents “based on their own work and resources. ... I was not officially approached for any written consent or given an opportunity to read their applications before they filed the patents.” His co-inventors had done most of the research in China or on their own time, he wrote, and his contribution had been limited to “some non-essential, generic comments to them.” If he had participated in filing the patents, he said, he would never have used his Chinese name, which was legally invalid because he had changed it to Joseph Z. Tsien when he became a U.S. citizen. He suggested that the other inventors included him on the patents out of gratitude for “getting them acquainted with each other at social gatherings in China,” or because of his luster as a scientist. He also showed ProPublica a “declaration letter” from the law firm in China that handled the patent applications, attesting that, “We received no document signed by Joseph Tsien or Qian Zhuo.” In recent years, more than twice as many patent applications have been filed in China as in the U.S. From the local level up, the government in China has often rewarded applicants with subsidies or job promotions. It seemed possible that such incentives had prompted Banna or the co-inventors to apply without Tsien’s knowledge. But an obscure paragraph in Tsien’s own answers to the university undermined his defense. He wrote that one of the other inventors, Yi Qian, was his sister, and that she, his mother and his mother-in-law were all partners in Dadu, along with Meng Li and Fang Zhao. The company, Tsien wrote, “manages organic tea farms and offers tea, traditional Chinese medicine products, health/wellness and cosmetic products,” raising the question of why it would co-own patents related to research on heart rates. Tsien had told ProPublica that he had a sister. But he hadn’t mentioned that they worked together or shared a patent. “My sister mostly lives with my parents in Yunnan province where weather is … more suitable for elderly, and she also manages her organic tea farm there,” he had written months before. Now he added that she was trained in mechanical engineering and “helped us to expand the remote measurements” beyond mice to fish, pigs, elephants and newborn Chinese babies. (Qian did not respond to a request for comment.) The ethics board at Banna Biomedical Research Institute approved the measurements on infants, which were taken by video camera. Tsien’s disclosure that his sister and mother had stakes in a company that co-owned his Chinese patents appeared to be at odds with another response he had given to the university. Its conflict-of- interest form, which Hess had ordered Tsien to fill out in 2019, asked whether any immediate family member was a full or partial owner of a business related to his “Institutional Responsibilities.” Tsien checked “no.” One of Tsien’s co-inventors contradicted his account. Fang Zhao told ProPublica in response to emailed questions that Tsien not only knew about the patent applications but also initiated them. He “asked me to prepare the technique reports for him when I worked in his lab,” she wrote. She said that Tsien asked his sister to apply for the Chinese patents. As for Tsien’s Chinese name on the patents, Fang Zhao said that he always uses it in China. She and Meng Li “have no idea that he has not reported these Chinese patents to Augusta University,” Fang Zhao wrote. “Joe told us this is normal academic cooperation activity which is allowed by Augusta University.” Fang Zhao also described the Banna institute as a private organization run by Tsien, his sister and his mother. This raised questions about Tsien’s relationship to the Thousand Talents Program. Tsien had said that he declined the Thousand Talents funding and arranged for it to go to Banna instead. But if Banna was controlled by his family, it seemed possible that he or his family had benefited directly or indirectly from the money. Chinese records and media coverage showed that the three Banna organizations were all established around the same time and were all connected to Tsien and his family. Dadu started in 2010 with about $700,000 in seed money. There was also the Banna Primate Model Animal Center, which opened in 2008 with about $1.5 million in capital, contrary to Tsien’s description of it as a 40-year-old organization. The primate center, which owned a 20% stake in Dadu, appeared to be a precursor to the Biomedical Research Institute, which started in 2010 with more than $2 million. A lawsuit in China alleged that the Banna entities were tightly intertwined — and linked to Tsien. A construction company sued Dadu, the biomedical institute, Tsien (by his Chinese name, notably) and his sister for nonpayment of roughly $800,000 of a $2.2 million contract. According to the lawsuit, the personnel and finances of Dadu and the institute were commingled and Tsien was the “actual controller and investor.” Citing a lack of funds, the defendants had requested more time to settle their account, but they had still not paid in full. The case’s status or outcome was unclear because in 2019 a local judge moved it to another court, whose records were unavailable. Tsien’s efforts to profit from the patents went beyond Banna. In December 2018, he and his sister proposed establishing a “Brain Science and Artificial Intelligence Research Center” in Yuxi, a city of 2.6 million people in Yunnan, about five hours’ drive from Xishuangbanna. The center’s products would include a remote drug screening device covered by one of the six Chinese patents. Notes from the meeting on the Yuxi government’s website identified Tsien, again by his Chinese name, as dean of the Banna Biomedical Research Institute and his sister as its vice president. The Yuxi government agreed to embark on the project, with Tsien’s sister as a deputy team leader. Tsien, second from right, at the signing ceremony for the Shaanxi Brain Science Center on July 18, 2018; the backdrop displays his Chinese name. The accompanying article describes him as the center’s director and his sister, Yi Qian, as deputy general manager of a related company. Highlights added by ProPublica. Screenshot from The Paper, July 19, 2018. Original photo from the Xi’an Publicity Department. Tsien spun these new revelations as best he could. While acknowledging that he had not always told the full story, he continued to distance himself from the Banna companies and the Chinese patents that they co-owned. For example, he said that Dadu “was established by a few of my relatives” but that he did not “provide the money.” His sister, he said, had worked for China Resources Group, a state-owned conglomerate, and then as an entrepreneur before managing the tea farm, and she had gotten rich enough to help found Dadu. “My family was poor when I was in high school or college,” he said. “Now everybody seems to be much better.” The primate center’s origins did trace back to the early 1980s, he said, but the state government had planned to close it and develop the real estate. “There was this very chaotic moment. I wanted to continue the primate research.” The center was reborn with his Georgia Research Alliance grant and local government money. The government then expanded it into the biomedical institute, which he described as a nonprofit organization with both public and private funding. He had donated the Thousand Talents stipend for construction of new buildings, such as a conference hall and a cafeteria, and didn’t personally profit, he said. He denied the construction company’s contention that Dadu and the institute commingled funds and that he controlled both entities. “They put my name in because they think I’m American, I have money.” The company hadn’t been fully paid because it had “jacked up the price,” but the court rejected the exorbitant sum, and the case was close to being settled. Tsien acknowledged that the lawsuit and other documents in China, like the patents, referred to him by his Chinese name. “Everybody in China uses my Chinese name,” he said. “I stopped trying to correct them.” He said he was aware that Meng Li and Fang Zhao wanted to apply for the patents. He had cautioned them that they had to abide by Augusta’s policies and that the work couldn’t be done in his lab, he said. “I told them, ‘You need to draw a line here.’” They followed his advice, he said. Once the Chinese patents came under scrutiny, Zhao and Li, as partners in Dadu, “may have unfortunately tried to shift blame,” Tsien said. Zhao did not respond to a request for comment. Tsien maintained that he had no desire to commercialize the patents. Asked about the proposed Yuxi research center that would develop the drug screening invention, he sighed. “If that qualifies as my effort to commercialize, then yes, OK, I did try to commercialize,” he said. Although Yuxi was “a natural” location because drug addiction was rampant there, the center has not materialized, he said. Tsien lives with his younger son and his sister’s children in a tree- lined Shanghai neighborhood in the apartment that East China Normal provided for him almost 20 years ago. His younger son works at a product design company, and his niece works at a media production company. His nephew goes to a better middle school than those available in Yunnan, where Tsien’s sister, Yi Qian, lives. The apartment’s other occupants are two German shepherds named Max and Duke. He hasn’t seen his wife or their young daughter for more than two years. Because he had only expected to be gone a month — he had bought a round-trip ticket — they stayed behind in Georgia. He said he talks with them daily by WeChat. “Sometimes, I play silly with my daughter, such as posing as an elephant wearing a cowboy hat.” He speaks a couple of times a week with his older son, a graduate student in computer science in the U.S. His reluctance to come back jeopardized his lawsuit in federal district court in Augusta. The university contended that it should be able to take his deposition in person, though remote depositions have become more common in the COVID-19 era. A magistrate judge ruled on Nov. 12 that “evading arrest is not a legitimate basis for seeking relief” and that Tsien had to appear in person to be deposed. Marooned in China, Tsien has had time to reflect on his rise and fall in the U.S. “America is like a treasured rainforest in which reside all sorts of creatures,” he said. “One just needs to deal with a few mosquitoes and possibly snakes along the way to enjoy and appreciate its majestic beauty.” Surprisingly, despite his many past affiliations with Chinese universities and institutes, Tsien is no longer working in higher education. “I did get many invitations to give seminars but tend to decline most because I prefer to draw a line between my previous academic life and current one, which gives a strange feeling that one may live twice,” he said. Instead, he’s chief scientist at an artificial intelligence startup in Shanghai, where he’s building a self-driving car operated by an algorithm and hardware inspired by brain computation. By creating a smarter car, as he created a smarter mouse, he hopes to vindicate his Theory of Connectivity about the basis of human intelligence. His departure from academia, though, may not be entirely by choice. One close friend said that Tsien, when he was riding high at Princeton, lorded his renown over Chinese researchers of lesser stature. Now the scientists who resented his condescension are in power at Chinese universities, and they have no desire to resuscitate Tsien’s career. “He burned bridges in both countries,” his friend said. “To me, it’s a tragedy.” Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism. Got a story we should hear? Are you down to be a background source on a story about your community, your schools or your workplace? Get in touch. Expand From:Tony Caruthers To:Council, City Subject:Mark Zuckerberg blatant Rebellion & stubborn-ness has caused a Curse from Heaven & God...Mark has hatred tot Israel and multi-cultural ethnicities...my cellphone number is 314-724-3946...I am waiting to be contacted by Palo Alto city Hall since Novembe... Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 11:24:20 AM Attachments:IMG_20220121_121044_01.webp Some people who received this message don't often get email from tonycaruzz@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. "2 Kings 2:23–24 (ESV) - 2 Kings 2:23–24 ESV - He went up from there… | Biblia" https://biblia.com/bible/esv/2-kings/2/23-24 From:Allan Seid To:CHOpinion CHOpinion Subject:Fwd: Caste DISCRIMINATION Banned AT UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA SCHOOL SYSTEM Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 10:55:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 9:40 AM Subject: Caste DISCRIMINATION Banned AT UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA SCHOOL SYSTEM To: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> From:Allan Seid To:CHOpinion CHOpinion Subject:Fwd: U.S. Drops Its Case Against M.I.T. Scientist Accused of Hiding China Links - The New York Times Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 10:52:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM Subject: U.S. Drops Its Case Against M.I.T. Scientist Accused of Hiding China Links - The New York Times To: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/science/gang-chen-mit-china- initiative.html#commentsContainer U.S. Drops Its Case Against M.I.T. Scientist Accused of Hiding China Links Gang Chen, a professor of mechanical engineering, was arrested a year ago, accused of concealing his affiliations with Chinese government institutions. Jan. 20, 2022 Gang Chen, an M.I.T. scientist, was arrested in 2021 as part of the China Initiative, a government anti-espionage effort that has come under criticism for singling out scientists of Chinese heritage.M.I.T. BOSTON — Federal prosecutors on Thursday dropped the government’s charges against Gang Chen, a professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an embarrassing setback to the government’s drive to crack down on economic and scientific espionage by China. The case against Dr. Chen was among the most visible of the China Initiative, an effort started in 2018 under the Trump administration. China has made aggressive efforts to steal American technology, through methods including the recruiting of overseas scientists as “non-traditional collectors.” Comments 175 The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com. R Rosalind Knoxville, TennesseeJan. 20 3 Replies A Alex Charlottesville, VAJan. 20 N N.R.JOTHI NARAYANAN PALAKKAD-678001, INDIA.Jan. 20 D Daniel Kauffman All politics are global, locally.Jan. 20 From:Allan Seid To:CHOpinion CHOpinion Subject:Fwd: Former Palo Alto resident becomes a two-time Winter Olympian Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 10:39:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:18 AM Subject: Former Palo Alto resident becomes a two-time Winter Olympian To: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/01/20/former-palo-alto-resident-becomes-a-two- time-winter-olympian?utm_source=express-2022-01- 21&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express#.Yer4pNy9ebk.mailto From:Arlene Goetze To:info@rokhanna.com; info@kamalaharris.org; Sara Cody Subject:CDC U-TURN...SHOTS DON"T WORK Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 10:37:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Pandemic Narrative Undergoes Radical U-Turn CDC Walensky admits COVID shots cannot prevent transmission on Jan. 10, 2022 - Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked. JAN 19, 2022 THIS SAME ARTICLE WAS REPRINTED IN THE DEFENDER, CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE.ORG, TITLED : 'Politics, Not Science? CDC Takes Radical U-Turn on Covid' CDC director admits Covid shots do NOT stop transmission. Will Pandemic end by March 1???? Pandemic Narrative Undergoes Radical U-Turn CDC Walensky admits COVID shots cannot prevent transmission on Jan. 10, 2022 - Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked. JAN 19, 2022 THIS SAME ARTICLE WAS REPRINTED IN THE DEFENDER, CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE.ORG, TITLED : 'Politics, Not Science? CDC Takes Radical U-Turn on Covid' CDC director admits Covid shots do NOT stop transmission. Will Pandemic end by March 1???? Subheads in Original Article * CDC Director Now Calls for Focused Protection * CDC Follows Political Strategy, Not Science * New Testing Guidance Aims to Lower Case Rates * CDC Highlights Role of Comorbidities in Vaxxed COVID Deaths * COVID Death Risk Has Always Been Low — Vaxxed or Not * Is the Political Pandemic in Its Final Death Throes? * Will We Finally Get a More Accurate Death Count? * Same Narrative Switch Seen in Europe * Justice Sotomayor Called Out It might be unprecedented for a major liberal newspaper to call out a liberal Justice. What could be going on? ...There seems to be a LOT of sudden momentum surging in the direction of ending the pandemic. If I’m right, we’re going to see even more of this, and pretty quickly, since Biden has to wrap it up in time to declare victory on March 1. Which would explain why they pushed the SOTU back a month. They need the time to get the pandemic wrapped up.”27 ** Sources and References at end of article - - - - - - - - - - - -- - STORY AT-A-GLANC * In recent days, the pandemic narrative has undergone a remarkable number of U-turns * January 9, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky sent out a tweet saying “We must protect people with comorbidities from severe COVID-19,” in other words, focused protection, which is what tens of thousands of doctors have been calling for since the creation of The Great Barrington Declaration in early October 2020 * January 10, 2022, Walensky admitted that the COVID shots cannot prevent transmissioN- * The CDC is now saying you should not retest once you’ve recovered from COVID, as the PCR can provide false positives for up to 12 weeks after the infection has been resolved. They’re also cutting the isolation requirement from 10 to just ve days — probably because the failing economy is hurting Biden’s approval rating so they need people to work * The narrative is also changing on what makes for a COVID case and how deaths are counted. Walensky recently admitted about 40% of “COVID patients” tested positive but do not have symptoms and are hospitalized for s omething else. She has also promised to deliver data on how many people have actually died “from” COVID and how many died “with” it As noted by Dr. Ron Paul in the January 10, 2022, Liberty Report above, U.S. authorities have suddenly started to change their tune with regard to COVID and the COVID shots. “The opposition to our position are starting to wake up,” Paul says, as some shreds of truth are actually starting to be acknowledged. The good news, Paul says, is that “Maybe some of the things they’ve been saying are not quite accurate, and maybe what we’ve been saying is closer to the truth, and maybe they’re starting to recognize that.” CDC Director Now Calls for Focused Protection Indeed, in recent days, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made a remarkable number of U-turns, completely reversing course on several narrative points. For example, in a January 10, 2022, CNN interview, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky actually admitted that “what [the COVID shots] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission,”1 whereas before, the narrative was that if you get the jab, you have nothing to worry about anymore. In July 2021, President Biden promised that if you get vaccinated, “you’re not going to get COVID.”2 Well, it wasn’t true. Many knew that, but were censored when pointing it out. A day earlier, January 9, Walensky also sent out a tweet saying “We must protect people with comorbidities from severe COVID-19,” which is what tens of thousands of doctors have been calling for since the creation of The Great Barrington Declaration in early October 2020. It called for focused protection of high-risk individuals, such as the elderly, rather than blanket lockdowns. It was recently revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and his former boss, now retired NationaInstitutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins, colluded behind the scenes to quash the declaration.3 For whatever reason, Fauci and Collins were hell-bent on pushingeconomy-destroying lockdowns instead. In an October 8, 2020, email to Fauci, Collins wrote:4,5,6,7 “The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention ... There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises ...” “Don’t worry, I got this,” Fauci replied. Later, Fauci sent Collins links to newly published articles refuting the focused protection solution, including an op-ed in Wired magazine, and an article in The Nation, titled “Focused Protection, Herd Immunity and Other Deadly Delusions.” CDC Follows Political Strategy, Not Science Now, all of a sudden, Walensky is onboard with the “deadly delusion” of focused protection. Her about-face would be confusing were it not for the fact that COVID countermeasures were never about protecting the public from a virus. From the start, the pandemic had political goals, and it still does. The pressure is now on to prove the Biden administration has made some sort of progress with the pandemic. Biden made a lot of promises, none of which have come to fruition, so now the political establishment is scrounging to come up with some plan that can make them look as though they’re getting somewhere. The problem is that cases are now exploding, when a successful vaccine campaign should have brought the situation under control. So, they now need a way to minimize the number of cases, whereas before, they used every trick in the book to overcount them,8 in order to scare people into complying with COVID restrictions and getting the jab. New Testing Guidance Aims to Lower Case Rates One simple way to cut down cases is to limit testing, and that’s another U-turn we’re now seeing. The CDC is now saying you should not retest once you’ve recovered from COVID. If you test positive, just quarantine for ve days and don’t retest to conrm that you’re negative, as the PCR can provide false positives for up to 12 weeks after the infection has been resolved. Well, we’ve known this for nearly two years already. From the start, experts warned that the PCR cannot be used to diagnose an active infection, as it c an pick up RNA from dead, noninfectious viral debris. Health authorities are now spinning the tale that these revisions in guidance are because we have two years’ worth of data, and they’re just following the science. But that’s pure baloney, seeing how the data never supported their COVID restrictions in the rst place. The CDC’s decision to revise quarantine guidelines down from 10 days to just ve days also appears politically motivated. Polls show the economy is a primary concern of voting Americans right now, so they need to strike a balance between the desired demolition of the economy and keeping people at work — at least until the 2022 elections are over. “ There seems to be a LOT of sudden momentum surging in the direction of ending the pandemic. If I’m right, we’re going to see even more of this, and pretty quickly, since Biden has to wrap it up in tim”e to declare victory on March 1. ~ Jeff Childers In short, I suspect most if not all of the recent changes in COVID guidance is to build a narrative that the Biden administration has successfully brought the pandemic under control and reestablished a working economy. The change in narrative is based on political strategy, not science. CDC Highlights Role of Comorbidities in Vaxxed COVID Deaths As noted by Paul in the Liberty Report above, Walensky recently stated that 75% of COVID deaths had four or more comorbidities, “So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with.” The admission went viral and was cited as proof that COVID is a lethal risk for none but the sickest among us. The CDC quickly stepped in, clarifying that she meant “75% of COVID deaths among those who have received the COVID jab,” not COVID deaths overall.9 You can see the unedited segment above, where that context is made clear. Still, we know that COVID poses very little risk for healthy unvaccinated people as well, and that comorbidities are a primary risk factor regardless of your COVID jab status. COVID Death Risk Has Always Been Low — Vaxxed or Not For example, a 2020 study10 found 88% of hospitalized COVID patients in New York City had two or more comorbidities, 6.3% had one underlying health condition and 6.1% had none. In late August 2020, the CDC published data showing only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.11 So, yes, COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, just as Walensky said, but that’s true whether you’re “vaccinated” or not. As for the study12 Walensky discussed in that “Good Morning America” segment, it found that of the 1.2 million COVID jabbed subjects, only 0.0033% died of COVID between December 2020 and October 2021. (And of those, 77.8% had four or more comorbidities.) This study, Walensky claims as evidence that the COVID shot works wonders to reduce the risk of death. But does it really? Recall studies13 showing the noninstitutionalized infection fatality rate is on average just 0.26% to begin with, and people under the age of 40 have only a 0.01% risk of dying from COVID.14 When we’re talking about a fraction of a percentage point risk, we’re talking about a risk that is close to statistical zero. So, does lowering your risk of death from 0.01% to 0.003% really translate into something worthwhile? And, more importantly, is that reduction worth the risks involved with t aking the jab? Clearly, it’s not a risk-free decision. OneAmerica, a national mutual life insurance company, recently warned that all-cause deaths among working age Americans (18 to 64) are up 40% over prepandemic norms,15 and they cannot be attributed to COVID. So, what’s causing these deaths? What potentially deadly thing did tens of millions of Americans do in 2021 that they’ve never done before? I’ll let you ponder whether Walensky’s claim that the COVID jab is saving lives is an accurate one. CDC Admits Large Portion of ‘COVID Patients’ Aren’t In another recent media appearance, Walensky stated that:16 “In some hospitals that we've talked to, up to 40% of the patients who are coming in with COVID-19 are coming in not because they’re sick with COVID, but because they’re coming in with something else and have had ... COVID or the Omicron variant detected.” This, again, is something that we’ve been highlighting since the start of the pandemic. Most so-called “COVID patients” simply weren’t, and still aren’t. They’re hospitalized for something else entirely, and just happen to get a positive test result upon admission — which very possibly is a false positive. Either way, voila, they’re a COVID patient, even though they’re hospitalized for a broken leg or a heart attack. As noted by Delta News TV, “Comments like these have cast doubt on the severity of the current COVID surge even as the Supreme Court considers legal challenges to Biden’s sweeping private sector mandates on that very issue.”17 Is the Political Pandemic in Its Final Death Throes? In a January 10, 2022, blog post,18 Jeff Childers, an attorney, and the president and founder of Childers Law rm, presents a hypothesis for why we might be looking at the end of the pandemic, as the Biden administration has “no reasonable alternative but to wrap this whole thing up in the next 60 days or so.” “There’s an interesting political dynamic shaping up, a kind of political vice grip that might just be driving federal COVID policy toward authenticity and an end to the pandemic ... a lot of reality has been breaking through lately ,” Childers writes.19 He points out how a federal judge recently ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to release all the Pzer COVID jab data that the agency wanted 75 years to release. The bulk of that data is now due March 1, 2022, the day of Biden’s State of the Union address. Childers suspects the Pzer documents will contain plenty of counternarrative fodder and politically embarrassing details. Why We’re Seeing a U-Turn in the Narrative Now Biden needs some good news by his State of the Union address, as it’ll be his last chance to “help move the needle back toward blue,” and the way he can do that is by declaring the pandemic over. He can then claim to be the great liberator who ended the pandemic measures for good. “If they handle this right, they can give their voting base and sycophantic media agents all the necessary talking points to boost Dem prospects for the midterm elections,” Childers writes.20 But to pull off that U-turn with any semblance of credibility, they have to start cutting the case rate now, and that’s precisely what we’re seeing. For example, the CDC recently changed its guidelines so you don’t need to retest after you’ve recovered from COVID, so no more false positives from recovered people. Florida’s ocial policy is now to only test high-risk individuals and those who are symptomatic. Childers points out that the left-leaning Sun Sentinel even ran an article highlighting the fact that despite surging case rates, Florida has the lowest COVID death rate in the nation, second only to the sparsely populated Alaska. “What incredibly powerful force could make the Sun Sentinel downplay the pandemic like this?” he asks. Will We Finally Get a More Accurate Death Count? The CDC also appears poised to change the denition of COVID death to what it should have been all along. Childers notes: “Fox News ... Bret Baier ... asked [Walensky] ‘how many of the 836,000 deaths in the U.S. linked to COVID are FROM COVID or how many are WITH COVID?’ Director Walensky said ... ‘those data will be forthcoming.’ Until about 10 minutes ago, the CDC said it didn’t HAVE any way to track that kind of information ... But now, apparently, CDC plans to release information about deaths from and with. What do you want to bet they’ll be REDUCING total COVID deaths shortly? By a lot.” They’re also starting to accurately count only those who are actually sick with COVID rather than including people hospitalized for other reasons who just happen to test positive. “Yesterday, New York Governor Hochul announced that almost HALF of patients are hospitalized for ‘non-COVID reasons,’ scattering the rotting orpse of the Narrative. You might recall that just last week she ordered hospitals to start breaking down the reported gures and showing how many folks ACTUALLY are sick with COVID versus just testing positive in the hospital. We’ve been yelling about overcounting hospitalizations for two years now and they j ust noticed?”21 Same Narrative Switch Seen in Europe The same sudden switch in narrative can be seen in Europe. Childers continues:22 “Yesterday, the Guardian UK ran a story headlined, ‘End mass jabs and live with COVID, says ex-head of vaccine taskforce.’ It says Dr. Clive Dix — former chairman of the UK’s vaccine taskforce — has called for a ‘major rethink’ of the UK’s COVID strategy, in effect reversing the approach of the past two years and returning to a ‘new normality.’ Shocking the cores the oft-maligned authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. Dix — without getting cancelled — said this: ‘We need to analyze whether we use the current booster campaign to ensure the vulnerable are protected, if this is seen to be necessary ... Mass population- based vaccination in the UK should now end.’ Ending mass vaccinations? Suddenly that idea is okay to discuss in the corporate media? Wow.” In a January 3, 2022, interview with the Daily Telegraph, professor Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.’s Committee on Vaccination and Immunization who helped create the Oxford- AstraZeneca shot, also made a previously verboten statement: “We can’t vaccinate the planet every four or six months,” he said. “It’s not sustainable or affordable.”23 And, like Dix, Pollard was not canceled, censored or deplatformed. January 11, 2022, Bloomberg also reported that “European Union regulators warned that frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency.”24 Marco Cavaleri, the EMA’s head of vaccines strategy, said during a January 11, 2022, press brieng:25 “While use of additional boosters can be part of contingency plans, repeated vaccinations within short intervals would not represent a sustainable long-term strategy. [Boosters] can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly. We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.” That same day, the World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) also issued a statement26 s aying that “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.” They also stated that COVID vaccines that actually prevent infection and transmission need to be developed. The timing of all these statements is nothing if not remarkable. It shows just how coordinated this plandemic narrative is, all around the world. Justice Sotomayor Called Out Perhaps the best example that the narrative is undergoing a radical overhaul, Childers says, is Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor being fact checked and called out as a liar by The Washington Post: “You’ll recall that Sotomayor condently told the lawyers during oral argument Friday that ‘100,000’ children were in critical care and on ventilators with Omicron. The lawyers didn’t challenge her even though there aren’t that many total ICU beds in the whole country. But on Saturday — the next day! — the Washington Post ran an article headlined, ‘Sotomayor’s false claim that ‘over 100,000’ children are in ‘ serious condition’ with COVID.’ FALSE CLAIM?? What?? Here’s how the fact-checking article ended: ‘It’s important for Supreme Court justices to make rulings based on correct data ... But Sotomayor during an oral argument offered a gure — 100,000 children in ‘serious condition ... many on ventilators’ — that is absurdly high. She earns Four Pinocchios.’ It might be unprecedented for a major liberal newspaper to call out a liberal Justice. What could be going on? ... There seems to be a LOT of sudden momentum surging in the direction of ending the pandemic. If I’m right, we’re going to see even more of this, and pretty quickly, since Biden has to wrap it up in time to declare victory on March 1. Which would explain why they pushed the SOTU back a month . They need the time to get the pandemic wrapped up.”27 Sources and References 1 KMOX January 10, 2022 2 Washington Examiner December 16, 2021 3 Wall Street Journal December 21, 2021 4 YouTube Liberty Report, 7:13 minutes 5 The Blaze December 18, 2021 6 Daily Mail December 18, 2021, Updated December 19, 2021 7 ZeroHedge December 20, 2021 8 Science, Public Health Policy and the Law October 12, 2020; 2: 4-22 9, 16, 17 Delta News January 10, 2022 10 JAMA April 22, 2020 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.6775 [Epub ahead of print] 11 CDC.gov August 26, 2020, Comorbidities Table 3, updated October 14, 2020 12 CDC MMWR January 7, 2022; 71(1): 19-25 13, 14 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352 15 Nature of the COVID-era public health disaster in the USA 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27 Coffee and COVID January 10, 2022 23 The Telegraph January 3, 2022 24 Bloomberg January 11, 2022 25 Reuters January 11, 2022 26 WHO Interim Statement on COVID Vaccines January 11, 2022 View this email in your browser LWVPA Community Event From:LWV Palo Alto (Eblast) To:Council, City Subject:Reminder: Housing for All - How? A Community Conversation on Housing in Palo Alto on Wednesday, January 26 Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 9:22:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. HOUSING FOR ALL – HOW? A community conversation on housing in Palo Alto Wednesday, January 26, 2022 7 pm - 8:30 pm on Zoom MODERATOR: John Barton, Director of Stanford’s Architectural Design Program, former member of Palo Alto City Council and PAUSD Board, and founding member of the Community Working Group that built the Palo Alto Opportunity Center. Palo Alto has an opportunity to become a better, more affordable and more livable community for residents of a wide range of income levels, and in ways that meet the state’s assigned housing goals for us to reduce overcrowding and greenhouse gas emissions. But how can we effectively address this challenge after so many years of trying? After hearing about the struggles over housing costs faced by some in the community, we will discuss options for increasing our housing stock and helping renters and future owners. We will also learn from experts about what neighboring communities are doing to meet their housing targets. Leveraging that information, participants will then share in breakout groups their thoughts on best ways forward. Though the program is focused on Palo Alto, people from neighboring communities are warmly invited to participate. Please join us for this lively discussion! Sponsored by Cosponsored by Alta Housing, Palo Alto Forward, Palo Alto Community Fund, and League of Women Voters Santa Clara County Council Please share with others who may be interested. LWVPaloAlto.org Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Email Email Copyright © 2022 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Register Now Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Subject:THE "VACCINE" IS A WEAPON. Police Asked To Seize Them Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 12:22:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ❑® Please add this email to your contact list to avoid that our emails go to your SPAM. If it went to the SPAM folder, you can also move it to the INBOX to avoid it in the future. Blessings, Awakening Channel Team GO TO THE POST > Unsubscribe to no longer receive emails from us. AWAKENING CHANNEL Infomaniak From:Aram James To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto police chief is retiring; plans to run for sheriff – Palo Alto Daily Post Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:55:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://padailypost.com/2022/01/20/palo-alto-police-chief-is-retiring-plans-to-run-for-sheriff/ Sent from my iPhone From:mark weiss To:Council, City Cc:Jeff LaMere; Tom DuBois (tom.dubois@gmail.com); Alison Cormack; Winter Dellenbach; Drekmeier, Peter; Diane Reklis; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; melissa baten caswell; Megan Swezey Fogarty; ladoris@judgecordell.com; Jason Miller; Don Austin; Camille Townsend; James Aram; Yolanda Conaway; Andrew Hargadon; Mitch Stephens; bill mitchell; hansdelannoy599@gmail.com; Sadyk; Bret Baird; Doug Keare; Kristy Blackburn; David Kiefer; Ken Dauber; Greg Hulbert; Greg Zlotnick; Matt Gonzalez; Cohen Steve; Michael A. McFaul; Argumedo, Leonel; nia taylor; Brian Evans; rick eymer; eric cohen; Geoffrey Gibbs; Ken Arnold; Jonathan Rosenberg; Eric Rosenblum; Summa, Doria; Carolyn Digovich; Katy Jacobs; Robert Leland; Carol Mullin; Gregory Nerland; Matt Maltz; Caroline Camhy; Brian Moore; Holman, Karen (external); Kathy Jordan; Tommy Jordan; gwen crawford Subject:Re: we don"t need no stinkin" gym Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 8:54:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I apologize if anyone was offended by my quasi-literary reference to a 1948 movie written and directed by John Huston, that has shown several times at the Stanford Theatre. And I'm not opposed to a new gym or wellness center, just a tad cynical about our efforts at self-governance here. Modern gyms with proper HVAC systems likely are not offensive in the olfactory sense of the term. Mark Weiss PS I was not actually a "star" for Gunn Titans. I was a reserve guard who only played when our team was well ahead. The stars on our team were Kent Lockhart, Danny Brown, John Ehrlich, Phil Wessells, Andy Hargadon, Jerry Chang and Richard Nielsen. see also: https://markweiss86.com/2022/01/20/go-badgers/ On Thursday, December 16, 2021, 11:36:07 PM PST, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I'd like to see a group of pro-planet billionaires and 100x billionaires start buying up land, starting with Casti and Cub and Fry's and restore it to natural land, doubling our existing parkland-per-capita ratio (which lags our promise to self in our Comp Plan). And re-name Foothill Park for a Black person like Al Young or LaDoris Cordell. Mark Weiss former Gunn basketball star and 3x council candidate, dba Earthwise From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:FW: Free Online Special EVent: New Models and Insider Tips for Going EV! Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:43:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. This city promotion (pasted below) upsets me. E-cars create the same congestion and safety impacts as their gas- fueled counterparts. The manufacture and maintenance of electric cars and the miles of asphalt infrastructure they drive and park on is NOT sustainable. Please let the car manufacturers do their own advertising. I don’t like seeing my tax dollars spent this way. What about e-bikes which are also electric vehicles and are more sustainable? If the city is going to promote E- cars, they should also be promoting the entire array of EVs, not just electric cars. There are many new options that most people might be surprised to learn can travel much longer ranges. Also, please do not help electric car manufacturers usurp the EV moniker in your promotion. There are many kinds of EVs. Electric cars are one of the least sustainable options in this category. Government support of the automotive industry is what got the U.S. into the our present congested, dysfunctional, car-centric transportation system mess. Please stop. E-cars are really not so green, though they are better than combustion engines. We can do better. Please spend my tax dollars on alternatives to driving—shuttles, bike/ped facilities, bike parking, to name a few. Thank you for considering my comments. Penny Ellson From: City of Palo Alto <cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 3:59 PM To: pennyellson12@gmail.com Subject: Free Online Special EVent: New Models and Insider Tips for Going EV! Free Online EV Event Utilities E-Newsletter Header Special EVent: New Models and Insider Tips for Going EV! Hot Water, Cool Rebates & Savings GoEV Free Online Event Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM (PST) Register Here Get the inside scoop on the most anticipated new models coming this year, plus tips on how to maximize your EV ownership experience. This workshop, which provides updates on local and regional incentives and inventory, is a timely compliment to our popular EV 101 workshops. All EV enthusiasts, owners, and future owners are encouraged to attend! Solar PV and EV Calculators HPWH Is your water heater more than 12 years old? Don't wait for it to leak or stop working. Be proactive and replace it with a highly efficient heat pump water heater (HPWH). HPWHs are 300% more efficient than a typical gas water heater. Plus, receive up to a $1,500 HPWH rebate for replacing your existing water heater. HEG Genie Logo 2022 Have high utility bills or concerns with energy or water efficiency? The Home Efficiency Genie provides FREE over the phone energy and water efficiency advice for all Palo Alto residents. Genie advisors provide expert and impartial guidance to save you money and keep you comfortable. Contact the Genie online or call (650) 713-3411 for your free phone consultation today! Connect with Us (650) 329-2241 Email EVs Is a solar PV system or an electric vehicle right for you? Use the City of Palo Alto's Solar PV Calculator and EV Calculator to run a quick assessment and compare financing options side by side. The City has a variety of e-news topics that may be of interest to you. Join other e-news topics, update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com. This service is provided to you at no charge by the City of Palo Alto. This email was sent to pennyellson12@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Palo Alto · 250Hamilton Ave · Palo Alto, CA 94301 · 650-329-2100 Virus-free. www.avg.com From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team; Paras, Christine; Allen, James; Tanner, Rachael Subject:Council Consent Agenda Questions for January 24: Items 3, 4, 5, 7, 12 Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:12:47 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view responses to questions from Councilmembers Dubois and Tanaka regarding Monday night’s Council Meeting at this link. The amended agenda can be found here. Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:City Council 2022 Priorities Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:11:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council, The City’s Priorities survey has closed, so I am writing to share my thoughts on 2022 City Priorities. I find myself wondering about the way we have set priorities in the past. Categories like: Housing, Land Use, Sustainability, Transportation, Economic Recovery have risen individually as priorities as though they are disconnected, though we know that they are not. I hope we will think about priorities differently this year, tying them together and focusing on more specific problems and projects that may require staff or financial resources. With focus on housing infill, I think about availability of school capacity, community services, transportation, utilities in the areas of the city where this housing will be located. I think about leveraging the advantages of infill to move us toward sustainability which can only happen if we think comprehensively about coupling housing infill with transportation, utilities (especially water and electricity) and community facilities improvements. The things we want-- economic recovery, sustainability, more diverse and plentiful housing stock—are all tied to a healthy multi-modal transportation system, the circulation system that makes a city work. Please prioritize: Timely decision-making that moves us toward Multi-Modal Grade Separation The existing options already serve driver needs extremely well, but that’s not so for foot- powered folks. Please make sure these plans are improved to integrate safe, comfortable facilities across Alma and the rails for people who walk and bike. These are school commute routes. Select concepts and move toward shovel readiness this year. Tie Housing, Transportation and Community Services Together—Adapt the Housing Element to increase and diversify housing stock to enable planning and building housing that is well-supported within a comprehensive community context, providing multi-modal transportation facilities, community services and school capacity that is needed to serve added housing. Examples: Integrate the Wilkie/Park Bicycle Boulevard plans with Ventura development plans and move them forward together with a comprehensive plan for that area. If the city is serious about redeveloping portions of San Antonio Road and East Meadow Circle/Fabian Area with housing, then make sure that community services and school capacity are preserved and rebuilt on our last, large publicly owned parcel, Cubberley, to support that development in south Palo Alto with walkable, bikable schools and city services. These things must be linked. If the city is going to take a position on housing legislation, please insist that housing mandates be accompanied by meaningful state funding for transportation, school capacity and community service improvements. Economic Recovery—So many cuts. It is time to restore some staffing and fund projects to get things moving again. Move forward with hope (and good fiscal sense) as you continue to support efforts to free our community from the many restrictions this pandemic places on our lives. Example: OOT staff is down 23%. They were never overstaffed. Let’s get that department back up to speed. FYI…Work on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update, which was supposed to start last summer, and has not started yet because we need a Senior Planner to drive it. Thanks for listening…and for all you do. Penny Ellson Virus-free. www.avg.com From:Valerie Milligan To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Monday Public Hearing on RM-40 Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:31:41 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from valerie.milligan5@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: I would like to express full agreement with the message below from Jamie Beckett and Peter Jon Schuler. My neighborhood is zoned RM-40 and the quality of life has deteriorated severely since I moved in 28 years ago. In addition. we have two large projects in the works, and the project at 123 Sherman Avenue threatens to adversely impact the quality of life further. Please protect the interests of all Palo Altos to be able to enjoy a peaceful existence in their own homes. Thank you for your attention. Best regards, Valerie Milligan 2573 Park Boulevard U102 Palo Alto, CA 94306 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jamie Beckett <jmbeckett@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:27 PM Subject: Monday Public Hearing on RM-40 To: <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>, <kou.pacc@gmail.com>, Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Tom.DuBois@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Peter Shuler <peterjon@gmail.com>, Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>, Kim Griffin <kimberly.griffin6@gmail.com>, Suzanne Steimle <suzanne.steimle@gmail.com>, Valerie Milligan <valerie.milligan5@gmail.com>, George Thomas <vbthomas@pacbell.net>, Anoja Herath <anojaca@gmail.com>, Julia Grinkrug <ujulka@gmail.com>, Young <patiencesinging@gmail.com>, <City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org> Dear Councilmembers Dubois, Kou and Stone, We are members of the public who raised the issue with the council of unfair treatment for RM-40 during the discussions over objective standards. So imagine our surprise when we learned purely by chance that on Monday there will be a public hearing on this matter. Although we typically review the council agenda, we had not yet done so. We received nothing in the mail, no email notice and no notice of any kind. As you may recall, we live in Palo Alto Central, a 140-unit condominium complex located in what feels like the epicenter of development in Palo Alto. We are already living with the clamor, disruption and traffic congestion caused by construction from the public safety building, and we face two additional projects -- 231 Grant and 123 Sherman. We view fairness for RM-40 as a vitally important matter that affects our well-being. The proposal by the Planning Department is a slap in the face to our concerns. Although the Planning Department's proposal claims to adjust height standards for structures abutting RM- 40, it does no such thing. The proposal changes none of the unfair policies and practices that affect us. People in RM-40 and PC zones remain the only Palo Alto residents who lack any protection from massive development abutting our homes. Developers can put a structure as high as 50 feet within 20 feet of our homes and we have no recourse. Unlike everyone else in Palo Alto we not entitled to light, air, sunshine, green space or privacy. We would like to remind the council that as you pursue the goals of the Race & Equity statement, you also consider economic inequality and remember that most people are not among the privileged few who can buy multi-million dollar single-family homes in Palo Alto. The Planning Department proposal is designed to please developers -- not city residents. We count on our council to protect the rights of city residents. We are grateful to you councilmembers Dubois, Greer and Kou, for your pastwillingness to explore our concerns about long-standing inequities that RM-40residents face. We hope we can count on you and the rest of the council to look outfor what's best for those of who live in the city and not just those who want to profit from it. Sincerely yours,Jamie BeckettPeter Jon Shuler Park Boulevard, Palo Alto From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Eduardo Guilarte; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Moore; Jonsen, Robert; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Planning Commission; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Reifschneider, James; Rebecca Eisenberg; Greer Stone; Raj Jayadev; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; darylsavage@gmail.com; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; ladoris@judgecordell.com Subject:Re: A true confession gone wrong PAPD and their coerced false confession extracted from Jorge Hernandez makes 60 mins ( second story) Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:53:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ And if you look at Jeff Rosen election reelection platform, he makes no mention of any kind of police reforms. His second in command, is also silent on police ‍♀ reform. Historically both have given all policing agencies carte blanche, with a license to bully and kill indiscriminately with cause... Mark Petersen-Perez Editor in chiefPalo Alto Free PressReporting from nicaragua Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 20, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is the story on Jorge Hernandez feb 2004 that made 60 mins —second story in the article. We still don’t know what the full range of reforms, if any, the PAPD has taken to prevent another series of false confession cases. aram > > https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-true-confession/ > > > Sent from my iPhone Blog | COVID-19 | Racial Justice From:Silicon Valley Community Foundation To:Council, City Subject:Looking ahead to a year of great impact Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:31:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. 650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org Moving forward with hope As we reflect on 2021, we are filled with overwhelming gratitude for the generosity of our donors and corporate partners, and the tireless work of the many heroic nonprofit organizations serving our region. SVCF broke its grantmaking records, distributing $2.27 billion in grants to support nearly 6,000 nonprofits. More than $775 million stayed in the Bay Area, with $201 million going to local nonprofits here in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Read the full statement from SVCF president & CEO, Nicole Taylor. SVCF welcomes new board members and Executive Vice President We are honored to welcome Scott Kupor, Van Ton-Quinlivan and Jennifer Urdan to SVCF's board of directors, and Judi Powell as the new Executive Vice President of Donor Engagement and Corporate Responsibility. Read the statement Read the announcement SVCF donor advised fund creates exponential impact in donor’s home state Former SVCF board member Thurman V. White, Jr. and his wife, Eileen, made transformational investments through their DAF by bringing Raising A Reader to Thurman’s home state of Oklahoma. One-of-a-kind vaccination clinic SVCF teamed up with Children's Discovery Museum, the beloved institution in San Jose, to support local families and their young children with creative vaccination clinics. SVCF leads among major foundations on diversity of asset managers SVCF is one of only four major foundations in the country with more than 30% of its assets managed by firms owned by women or people of color. Staff Spotlight: Anne Im, Director of Community Investment With a rich background in nonprofits and government, Anne Im is helping SVCF advance social justice in our region. Address 2440 West El Camino Real Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040 About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change. Copyright © 2022 Silicon Valley Community Foundation View in browser | Unsubscribe From:Aram James To:Eduardo Guilarte; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Moore; Jonsen, Robert; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Planning Commission; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Reifschneider, James; Rebecca Eisenberg; Greer Stone; Raj Jayadev; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; darylsavage@gmail.com; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; ladoris@judgecordell.com Subject:A true confession gone wrong PAPD and their coerced false confession extracted from Jorge Hernandez makes 60 mins ( second story) Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:26:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Here is the story on Jorge Hernandez feb 2004 that made 60 mins —second story in the article. We still don’t know what the full range of reforms, if any, the PAPD has taken to prevent another series of false confession cases. aram https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-true-confession/ Sent from my iPhone You don't often get email from melissa.hopkins@mail.house.gov. Learn why this is important From:Shikada, Ed To:Council, City Cc:Tran, Joanna Subject:FW: Rep. Eshoo Invitation Regarding Broadband Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 8:57:59 AM Attachments:Rep. Eshoo ltr to Mayor Burt 1.19.22.pdf BIF Broadband for States.pdf NTIA-RFC.pdf Councilmembers, Please note the attached invitation. Respectfully, --Ed From: Hopkins, Melissa <Melissa.Hopkins@mail.house.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 8:29 AM To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Ramzanali, Asad <Asad.Ramzanali@mail.house.gov> Subject: Rep. Eshoo Invitation Regarding Broadband CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Shikada, I hope this email finds you well. Please find attached an invitation from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for an event next Wednesday that will allow members of our community to provide input in the implementation of broadband funding that Congress recently enacted. Please distribute to the Mayor and Councilmembers and let us know if you have any questions -- we hope you can make it! Best, Melissa Melissa Hopkins Legislative Fellow Office of Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo, CA-18 January 19, 2022 The Honorable Pat Burt, Mayor City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Dear Mayor Burt, I’m pleased to invite you, or designated members of your staff, to join a listening session that I’m hosting with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). This is an opportunity to provide input on how the agency should draft the regulations related to the $45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program (BEAD) recently established by Congress. The virtual event will be held on Wednesday, January 26, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time. I’m inviting municipalities, local internet service providers (ISPs), and community organizations in our Congressional District to provide direct input to the agency writing the rules to administer this historic investment in broadband and hope you will join us. On November 15, 2021, the President signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), with my enthusiastic vote and support. The legislation includes $65 billion in funding for broadband infrastructure to reduce the digital divide. NTIA, an agency within the Commerce Department, will disperse $42.45 billion to states for broadband and we anticipate many states will further disperse that funding to municipalities and local ISPs. The funding will be allocated based on each state’s unserved areas based on broadband maps that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is developing. According to one estimate, California may receive over $2 billion. In the coming months, NTIA will write the rules and regulations related to how states can use this funding. I’ve enclosed for your perusal the section of the legislation that NTIA will administer for this funding and the related NTIA request for comment (RFC). I also encourage you to provide input to inform the new program’s implementation by submitting a public comment before the deadline of February 4, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time here. To RSVP for this virtual event or if you have questions, you can contact Melissa Hopkins of my staff at melissa.hopkins@mail.house.gov to let me know you’ll attend by January 25, 2022. Most gratefully, Anna G. Eshoo Member of Congress Enclosures cc: The Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council Mr. Ed Shikada, City Manager E H.R.3684—754 DIVISION F—BROADBAND TITLE I—BROADBAND GRANTS FOR STATES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PUERTO RICO, AND TERRITORIES SEC. 60101. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) Access to affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full participation in modern life in the United States. (2) The persistent ‘‘digital divide’’ in the United States is a barrier to the economic competitiveness of the United States and equitable distribution of essential public services, including health care and education. (3) The digital divide disproportionately affects commu- nities of color, lower-income areas, and rural areas, and the benefits of broadband should be broadly enjoyed by all. (4) In many communities across the country, increased competition among broadband providers has the potential to offer consumers more affordable, high-quality options for broadband service. (5) The 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic has underscored the critical importance of affordable, high-speed broadband for individuals, families, and communities to be able to work, learn, and connect remotely while supporting social distancing. SEC. 60102. GRANTS FOR BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT. (a) DEFINITIONS.— (1) AREAS, LOCATIONS, AND INSTITUTIONS LACKING BROADBAND ACCESS.—In this section: (A) UNSERVED LOCATION.—The term ‘‘unserved loca- tion’’ means a broadband-serviceable location, as deter- mined in accordance with the broadband DATA maps, that— (i) has no access to broadband service; or (ii) lacks access to reliable broadband service offered with— (I) a speed of not less than— (aa) 25 megabits per second for downloads; and (bb) 3 megabits per second for uploads; and (II) a latency sufficient to support real-time, interactive applications. (B) UNSERVED SERVICE PROJECT.—The term ‘‘unserved service project’’ means a project in which not less than 80 percent of broadband-serviceable locations served by the project are unserved locations. (C) UNDERSERVED LOCATION.—The term ‘‘underserved location’’ means a location— (i) that is not an unserved location; and (ii) as determined in accordance with the broadband DATA maps, lacks access to reliable broadband service offered with— H.R.3684—755 (I) a speed of not less than— (aa) 100 megabits per second for downloads; and (bb) 20 megabits per second for uploads; and (II) a latency sufficient to support real-time, interactive applications. (D) UNDERSERVED SERVICE PROJECT.—The term ‘‘underserved service project’’ means a project in which not less than 80 percent of broadband-serviceable locations served by the project are unserved locations or underserved locations. (E) ELIGIBLE COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTION.—The term ‘‘eligible community anchor institution’’ means a community anchor institution that lacks access to gigabit- level broadband service. (2) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—In this section: (A) ASSISTANT SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Assistant Sec- retary’’ means the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information. (B) BROADBAND; BROADBAND SERVICE.—The term ‘‘broadband’’ or ‘‘broadband service’’ has the meaning given the term ‘‘broadband internet access service’’ in section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation. (C) BROADBAND DATA MAPS.—The term ‘‘broadband DATA maps’’ means the maps created under section 802(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 642(c)(1)). (D) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Communications Commission. (E) COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTION.—The term ‘‘community anchor institution’’ means an entity such as a school, library, health clinic, health center, hospital or other medical provider, public safety entity, institution of higher education, public housing organization, or commu- nity support organization that facilitates greater use of broadband service by vulnerable populations, including low- income individuals, unemployed individuals, and aged individuals. (F) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—The term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means a State. (G) HIGH-COST AREA.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘high-cost area’’ means an unserved area in which the cost of building out broadband service is higher, as compared with the average cost of building out broadband service in unserved areas in the United States (as determined by the Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the Commission), incorporating factors that include— (I) the remote location of the area; (II) the lack of population density of the area; (III) the unique topography of the area; (IV) a high rate of poverty in the area; or (V) any other factor identified by the Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, H.R.3684—756 that contributes to the higher cost of deploying broadband service in the area. (ii) UNSERVED AREA.—For purposes of clause (i), the term ‘‘unserved area’’ means an area in which not less than 80 percent of broadband-serviceable loca- tions are unserved locations. (H) LOCATION; BROADBAND-SERVICEABLE LOCATION.— The terms ‘‘location’’ and ‘‘broadband-serviceable location’’ have the meanings given those terms by the Commission under rules and guidance that are in effect, as of the date of enactment of this Act. (I) PRIORITY BROADBAND PROJECT.—The term ‘‘priority broadband project’’ means a project designed to— (i) provide broadband service that meets speed, latency, reliability, consistency in quality of service, and related criteria as the Assistant Secretary shall determine; and (ii) ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to— (I) meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses; and (II) support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services. (J) PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘Program’’ means the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program estab- lished under subsection (b)(1). (K) PROJECT.—The term ‘‘project’’ means an under- taking by a subgrantee under this section to construct and deploy infrastructure for the provision of broadband service. (L) RELIABLE BROADBAND SERVICE.—The term ‘‘reliable broadband service’’ means broadband service that meets performance criteria for service availability, adaptability to changing end-user requirements, length of serviceable life, or other criteria, other than upload and download speeds, as determined by the Assistant Secretary in coordination with the Commission. (M) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning given the term in section 158 of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942), except that that definition shall be applied by striking ‘‘, and any other territory or possession of the United States’’. (N) SUBGRANTEE.—The term ‘‘subgrantee’’ means an entity that receives grant funds from an eligible entity to carry out activities under subsection (f). (b) BROADBAND EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall establish a grant program, to be known as the ‘‘Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program’’, under which the Assistant Secretary makes grants to eligible entities, in accord- ance with this section, to bridge the digital divide. (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is author- ized to be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary to carry out the Program $42,450,000,000. H.R.3684—757 (3) OBLIGATION TIMELINE.—The Assistant Secretary shall obligate all amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2) in an expedient manner after the Assistant Secretary issues the notice of funding opportunity under subsection (e)(1). (4) TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE.— (A) PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.—As part of the Program, the Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the Commis- sion, shall provide technical support and assistance to eligible entities to facilitate their participation in the Pro- gram, including by assisting eligible entities with— (i) the development of grant applications under the Program; (ii) the development of plans and procedures for distribution of funds under the Program; and (iii) other technical support as determined by the Assistant Secretary. (B) GENERAL ASSISTANCE.—The Assistant Secretary shall provide technical and other assistance to eligible enti- ties— (i) to support the expansion of broadband, with priority for— (I) expansion in rural areas; and (II) eligible entities that consistently rank below most other eligible entities with respect to broadband access and deployment; and (ii) regarding cybersecurity resources and pro- grams available through Federal agencies, including the Election Assistance Commission, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. (c) ALLOCATION.— (1) ALLOCATION FOR HIGH-COST AREAS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—On or after the date on which the broadband DATA maps are made public, the Assistant Secretary shall allocate to eligible entities, in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, 10 percent of the amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (b)(2). (B) FORMULA.—The Assistant Secretary shall calculate the amount allocated to an eligible entity under subpara- graph (A) by— (i) dividing the number of unserved locations in high-cost areas in the eligible entity by the total number of unserved locations in high-cost areas in the United States; and (ii) multiplying the quotient obtained under clause (i) by the amount made available under subparagraph (A). (2) MINIMUM INITIAL ALLOCATION.—Of the amount appro- priated pursuant to subsection (b)(2)— (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, $100,000,000 shall be allocated to each State; and (B) $100,000,000 shall be allocated to, and divided equally among, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. H.R.3684—758 (3) ALLOCATION OF REMAINING AMOUNTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—On or after the date on which the broadband DATA maps are made public, of the amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (b)(2), the Assistant Secretary shall allocate to eligible entities, in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the amount remaining after compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection. (B) ALLOCATION.—The amount allocated to an eligible entity under subparagraph (B) shall be calculated by— (i) dividing the number of unserved locations in the eligible entity by the total number of unserved locations in the United States; and (ii) multiplying the quotient obtained under clause (i) by the amount made available under subparagraph (A). (4) AVAILABILITY CONDITIONED ON APPROVAL OF APPLICA- TIONS.—The availability of amounts allocated under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) to an eligible entity shall be subject to approval by the Assistant Secretary of the letter of intent, initial pro- posal, or final proposal of the eligible entity, as applicable, under subsection (e). (5) CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES.— (A) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the term ‘‘covered application’’ means a letter of intent, initial proposal, or final proposal under this section. (B) POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND CONSORTIA.— (i) APPLICATION FAILURES.—The Assistant Sec- retary, in carrying out the Program, shall provide that if an eligible entity fails to submit a covered application by the applicable deadline, or a covered application submitted by an eligible entity is not approved by the applicable deadline, a political subdivision or consortium of political subdivisions of the eligible entity may submit the applicable type of covered application in place of the eligible entity. (ii) TREATMENT OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR CONSORTIUM AS ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—In the case of a political subdivision or consortium of political subdivi- sions that submits a covered application under clause (i) that is approved by the Assistant Secretary— (I) except as provided in subclause (II) of this clause, any reference in this section to an eligible entity shall be deemed to refer to the political subdivision or consortium; and (II) any reference in this section to an eligible entity in a geographic sense shall be deemed to refer to the eligible entity in whose place the polit- ical subdivision or consortium submitted the cov- ered application. (C) REALLOCATION TO OTHER ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.— (i) APPLICATION FAILURES.—The Assistant Sec- retary, in carrying out the Program, shall provide that if an eligible entity fails to submit a covered application by the applicable deadline, or a covered application submitted by an eligible entity is not approved by the applicable deadline, as provided in subparagraph H.R.3684—759 (A)), and no political subdivision or consortium of polit- ical subdivisions of the eligible entity submits a covered application by the applicable deadline, or no covered application submitted by such a political subdivision or consortium is approved by the applicable deadline, as provided in subparagraph (B), the Assistant Sec- retary— (I) shall reallocate the amounts that would have been available to the eligible entity pursuant to that type of covered application to other eligible entities that submitted that type of covered application by the applicable deadline; and (II) shall reallocate the amounts described in subclause (I) of this clause in accordance with the formula under paragraph (3). (ii) FAILURE TO USE FULL ALLOCATION.—The Assist- ant Secretary, in carrying out the Program, shall pro- vide that if an eligible entity fails to use the full amount allocated to the eligible entity under this sub- section by the applicable deadline, the Assistant Sec- retary— (I) shall reallocate the unused amounts to other eligible entities with approved final pro- posals; and (II) shall reallocate the amounts described in subclause (I) in accordance with the formula under paragraph (3). (d) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.— (1) ASSISTANT SECRETARY.—The Assistant Secretary may use not more than 2 percent of amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) for administrative purposes. (2) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.— (A) PRE-DEPLOYMENT PLANNING.—An eligible entity may use not more than 5 percent of the amount allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c)(2) for the planning and pre-deployment activities under subsection (e)(1)(C). (B) ADMINISTRATION.—An eligible entity may use not more than 2 percent of the grant amounts made available to the eligible entity under subsection (e) for expenses relating (directly or indirectly) to administration of the grant. (e) IMPLEMENTATION.— (1) INITIAL PROGRAM DEPLOYMENT AND PLANNING.— (A) NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY; PROCESS.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall— (i) issue a notice of funding opportunity for the Program that— (I) notifies eligible entities of— (aa) the establishment of the Program; and (bb) the amount of the minimum initial allocation to each eligible entity under sub- section (c)(2); (II) invites eligible entities to submit letters of intent under subparagraph (B) in order to— (aa) participate in the Program; and H.R.3684—760 (bb) receive funding for planning and pre- deployment activities under subparagraph (C); (III) contains details about the Program, including an outline of the requirements for— (aa) applications for grants under the Pro- gram, which shall consist of letters of intent, initial proposals, and final proposals; and (bb) allowed uses of grant amounts awarded under this section, as provided in subsection (f); and (IV) includes any other information deter- mined relevant by the Assistant Secretary; (ii) establish a process, in accordance with subpara- graph (C), through which to provide funding to eligible entities for planning and pre-deployment activities; (iii) develop and make public a standard online application form that an eligible entity may use to submit an initial proposal and final proposal for the grant amounts allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c); (iv) publish a template— (I) initial proposal that complies with para- graph (3)(A); and (II) final proposal that complies with para- graph (4)(A); and (v) in consultation with the Commission, establish standards for how an eligible entity shall assess the capabilities and capacities of a prospective subgrantee under subsection (g)(2)(A). (B) LETTER OF INTENT.— (i) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity that wishes to participate in the Program shall file a letter of intent to participate in the Program consistent with this subparagraph. (ii) FORM AND CONTENTS.—The Assistant Secretary may establish the form and contents required for a letter of intent under this subparagraph, which con- tents may include— (I) details of— (aa) the existing broadband program or office of the eligible entity, including— (AA) activities that the program or office currently conducts; (BB) the number of rounds of broadband deployment grants that the eligible entity has awarded, if applicable; (CC) whether the eligible entity has an eligible entity-wide plan and goal for availability of broadband, and any rel- evant deadlines, as applicable; and (DD) the amount of funding that the eligible entity has available for broadband deployment or other broadband-related activities, including data collection and local planning, and the sources of that funding, including whether the funds are H.R.3684—761 from the eligible entity or from the Fed- eral Government under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117– 2); (bb) the number of full-time employees and part-time employees of the eligible entity who will assist in administering amounts received under the Program and the duties assigned to those employees; (cc) relevant contracted support; and (dd) the goals of the eligible entity for the use of amounts received under the Pro- gram, the process that the eligible entity will use to distribute those amounts to sub- grantees, the timeline for awarding subgrants, and oversight and reporting requirements that the eligible entity will impose on subgrantees; (II) the identification of known barriers or challenges to developing and administering a pro- gram to administer grants received under the Pro- gram, if applicable; (III) the identification of the additional capacity needed by the eligible entity to implement the requirements under this section, such as— (aa) enhancing the capacity of the broadband program or office of the eligible entity by receiving technical assistance from Federal entities or other partners, hiring addi- tional employees, or obtaining support from contracted entities; or (bb) acquiring additional programmatic information or data, such as through surveys or asset inventories; (IV) an explanation of how the needs described in subclause (III) were identified and how funds may be used to address those needs, including target areas; (V) details of any relevant partners, such as organizations that may inform broadband deploy- ment and adoption planning; and (VI) any other information determined rel- evant by the Assistant Secretary. (C) PLANNING FUNDS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The Assistant Secretary shall establish a process through which an eligible entity, in submitting a letter of intent under subparagraph (B), may request access to not more than 5 percent of the amount allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c)(2) for use consistent with this subpara- graph. (ii) FUNDING AVAILABILITY.—If the Assistant Sec- retary approves a request from an eligible entity under clause (i), the Assistant Secretary shall make available to the eligible entity an amount, as determined appro- priate by the Assistant Secretary, that is not more than 5 percent of the amount allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c)(2). H.R.3684—762 (iii) ELIGIBLE USE.—The Assistant Secretary shall determine the allowable uses of amounts made avail- able under clause (ii), which may include— (I) research and data collection, including ini- tial identification of unserved locations and under- served locations; (II) the development of a preliminary budget for pre-planning activities; (III) publications, outreach, and communica- tions support; (IV) providing technical assistance, including through workshops and events; (V) training for employees of the broadband program or office of the eligible entity or employees of political subdivisions of the eligible entity, and related staffing capacity or consulting or con- tracted support; and (VI) with respect to an office that oversees broadband programs and broadband deployment in an eligible entity, establishing, operating, or increasing the capacity of such a broadband office. (D) ACTION PLAN.— (i) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity that receives funding from the Assistant Secretary under subpara- graph (C) shall submit to the Assistant Secretary a 5-year action plan, which shall— (I) be informed by collaboration with local and regional entities; and (II) detail— (aa) investment priorities and associated costs; (bb) alignment of planned spending with economic development, telehealth, and related connectivity efforts. (ii) REQUIREMENTS OF ACTION PLANS.—The Assist- ant Secretary shall establish requirements for the 5- year action plan submitted by an eligible entity under clause (i), which may include requirements to— (I) address local and regional needs in the eligible entity with respect to broadband service; (II) propose solutions for the deployment of affordable broadband service in the eligible entity; (III) include localized data with respect to the deployment of broadband service in the eligible entity, including by identifying locations that should be prioritized for Federal support with respect to that deployment; (IV) ascertain how best to serve unserved loca- tions in the eligible entity, whether through the establishment of cooperatives or public-private partnerships; (V) identify the technical assistance that would be necessary to carry out the plan; and (VI) assess the amount of time it would take to build out universal broadband service in the eligible entity. H.R.3684—763 (2) NOTICE OF AVAILABLE AMOUNTS; INVITATION TO SUBMIT INITIAL AND FINAL PROPOSALS.—On or after the date on which the broadband DATA maps are made public, the Assistant Secretary, in coordination with the Commission, shall issue a notice to each eligible entity that— (A) contains the estimated amount available to the eligible entity under subsection (c); and (B) invites the eligible entity to submit an initial pro- posal and final proposal for a grant under this section, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection. (3) INITIAL PROPOSAL.— (A) SUBMISSION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—After the Assistant Secretary issues the notice under paragraph (2), an eligible entity that wishes to receive a grant under this section shall submit an initial proposal for a grant, using the online application form developed by the Assistant Secretary under paragraph (1)(A)(iii), that— (I) outlines long-term objectives for deploying broadband, closing the digital divide, and enhancing economic growth and job creation, including— (aa) information developed by the eligible entity as part of the action plan submitted under paragraph (1)(D), if applicable; and (bb) information from any comparable strategic plan otherwise developed by the eligible entity, if applicable; (II)(aa) identifies, and outlines steps to sup- port, local and regional broadband planning proc- esses or ongoing efforts to deploy broadband or close the digital divide; and (bb) describes coordination with local govern- ments, along with local and regional broadband planning processes; (III) identifies existing efforts funded by the Federal Government or a State within the jurisdic- tion of the eligible entity to deploy broadband and close the digital divide; (IV) includes a plan to competitively award subgrants to ensure timely deployment of broadband; (V) identifies— (aa) each unserved location or under- served location under the jurisdiction of the eligible entity; and (bb) each community anchor institution under the jurisdiction of the eligible entity that is an eligible community anchor institu- tion; and (VI) certifies the intent of the eligible entity to comply with all applicable requirements under this section, including the reporting requirements under subsection (j)(1). (ii) LOCAL COORDINATION.— (I) IN GENERAL.—The Assistant Secretary shall establish local coordination requirements for H.R.3684—764 eligible entities to follow, to the greatest extent practicable. (II) REQUIREMENTS.— The local coordination requirements established under subclause (I) shall include, at minimum, an opportunity for political subdivisions of an eligible entity to— (aa) submit plans for consideration by the eligible entity; and (bb) comment on the initial proposal of the eligible entity before the initial proposal is submitted to the Assistant Secretary. (B) SINGLE INITIAL PROPOSAL.—An eligible entity may submit only 1 initial proposal under this paragraph. (C) CORRECTIONS TO INITIAL PROPOSAL.—The Assistant Secretary may accept corrections to the initial proposal of an eligible entity after the initial proposal has been submitted. (D) CONSIDERATION OF INITIAL PROPOSAL.—After receipt of an initial proposal for a grant under this para- graph, the Assistant Secretary— (i) shall acknowledge receipt; (ii) if the initial proposal is complete— (I) shall determine whether the use of funds proposed in the initial proposal— (aa) complies with subsection (f); (bb) is in the public interest; and (cc) effectuates the purposes of this Act; (II) shall approve or disapprove the initial pro- posal based on the determinations under subclause (I); and (III) if the Assistant Secretary approves the initial proposal under clause (ii)(II), shall make available to the eligible entity— (aa) 20 percent of the grant funds that were allocated to the eligible entity under sub- section (c); or (bb) a higher percentage of the grant funds that were allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c), at the discretion of the Assist- ant Secretary; and (iii) if the initial proposal is incomplete, or is dis- approved under clause (ii)(II), shall notify the eligible entity and provide the eligible entity with an oppor- tunity to resubmit the initial proposal. (E) CONSIDERATION OF RESUBMITTED INITIAL PRO- POSAL.—After receipt of a resubmitted initial proposal for a grant under this paragraph, the Assistant Secretary— (i) shall acknowledge receipt; (ii) if the initial proposal is complete— (I) shall determine whether the use of funds proposed in the initial proposal— (aa) complies with subsection (f); (bb) is in the public interest; and (cc) effectuates the purposes of this Act; (II) shall approve or disapprove the initial pro- posal based on the determinations under subclause (I); and H.R.3684—765 (III) if the Assistant Secretary approves the initial proposal under clause (ii)(II), shall make available to the eligible entity— (aa) 20 percent of the grant funds that were allocated to the eligible entity under sub- section (c); or (bb) a higher percentage of the grant funds that were allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c), at the discretion of the Assist- ant Secretary; and (iii) if the initial proposal is incomplete, or is dis- approved under clause (ii)(II), shall notify the eligible entity and provide the eligible entity with an oppor- tunity to resubmit the initial proposal. (4) FINAL PROPOSAL.— (A) SUBMISSION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—After the Assistant Secretary approvals the initial proposal of an eligible entity under paragraph (3), the eligible entity may submit a final proposal for the remainder of the amount allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c), using the online application form developed by the Assistant Sec- retary under paragraph (1)(A)(iii), that includes— (I) a detailed plan that specifies how the eligible entity will— (aa) allocate grant funds for the deploy- ment of broadband networks to unserved loca- tions and underserved locations, in accordance with subsection (h)(1)(A)(i); and (bb) align the grant funds allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c), where practicable, with the use of other funds that the eligible entity receives from the Federal Government, a State, or a private entity for related purposes; (II) a timeline for implementation; (III) processes for oversight and accountability to ensure the proper use of the grant funds allo- cated to the eligible entity under subsection (c); and (IV) a description of coordination with local governments, along with local and regional broadband planning processes. (ii) LOCAL COORDINATION.— (I) IN GENERAL.—The Assistant Secretary shall establish local coordination requirements for eligible entities to follow, to the greatest extent practicable. (II) REQUIREMENTS.— The local coordination requirements established under subclause (I) shall include, at minimum, an opportunity for political subdivisions of an eligible entity to— (aa) submit plans for consideration by the eligible entity; and (bb) comment on the final proposal of the eligible entity before the final proposal is sub- mitted to the Assistant Secretary. H.R.3684—766 (iii) FEDERAL COORDINATION.—To ensure efficient and effective use of taxpayer funds, an eligible entity shall, to the greatest extent practicable, align the use of grant funds proposed in the final proposal under clause (i) with funds available from other Federal pro- grams that support broadband deployment and access. (B) SINGLE FINAL PROPOSAL.—An eligible entity may submit only 1 final proposal under this paragraph. (C) CORRECTIONS TO FINAL PROPOSAL.—The Assistant Secretary may accept corrections to the final proposal of an eligible entity after the final proposal has been sub- mitted. (D) CONSIDERATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL.—After receipt of a final proposal for a grant under this paragraph, the Assistant Secretary— (i) shall acknowledge receipt; (ii) if the final proposal is complete— (I) shall determine whether the use of funds proposed in the final proposal— (aa) complies with subsection (f); (bb) is in the public interest; and (cc) effectuates the purposes of this Act; (II) shall approve or disapprove the final pro- posal based on the determinations under subclause (I); and (III) if the Assistant Secretary approves the final proposal under clause (ii)(II), shall make available to the eligible entity the remainder of the grant funds allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c); and (iii) if the final proposal is incomplete, or is dis- approved under clause (ii)(II), shall notify the eligible entity and provide the eligible entity with an oppor- tunity to resubmit the final proposal. (E) CONSIDERATION OF RESUBMITTED FINAL PRO- POSAL.—After receipt of a resubmitted final proposal for a grant under this paragraph, the Assistant Secretary— (i) shall acknowledge receipt; (ii) if the final proposal is complete— (I) shall determine whether the use of funds proposed in the final proposal— (aa) complies with subsection (f); (bb) is in the public interest; and (cc) effectuates the purposes of this Act; (II) shall approve or disapprove the final pro- posal based on the determinations under subclause (I); and (III) if the Assistant Secretary approves the final proposal under clause (ii)(II), shall make available to the eligible entity the remainder of the grant funds allocated to the eligible entity under subsection (c); and (iii) if the final proposal is incomplete, or is dis- approved under clause (ii)(II), shall notify the eligible entity and provide the eligible entity with an oppor- tunity to resubmit the final proposal. H.R.3684—767 (f) USE OF FUNDS.—An eligible entity may use grant funds received under this section to competitively award subgrants for— (1) unserved service projects and underserved service projects; (2) connecting eligible community anchor institutions; (3) data collection, broadband mapping, and planning; (4) installing internet and Wi-Fi infrastructure or providing reduced-cost broadband within a multi-family residential building, with priority given to a residential building that— (A) has a substantial share of unserved households; or (B) is in a location in which the percentage of individ- uals with a household income that is at or below 150 percent of the poverty line applicable to a family of the size involved (as determined under section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) is higher than the national percentage of such individuals; (5) broadband adoption, including programs to provide affordable internet-capable devices; and (6) any use determined necessary by the Assistant Sec- retary to facilitate the goals of the Program. (g) GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.— (1) SUBGRANTEE OBLIGATIONS.—A subgrantee, in carrying out activities using amounts received from an eligible entity under this section— (A) shall adhere to quality-of-service standards, as established by the Assistant Secretary; (B) shall comply with prudent cybersecurity and supply chain risk management practices, as specified by the Assist- ant Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Commission; (C) shall incorporate best practices, as defined by the Assistant Secretary, for ensuring reliability and resilience of broadband infrastructure; and (D) may not use the amounts to purchase or support— (i) any covered communications equipment or service, as defined in section 9 of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1608); or (ii) fiber optic cable and optical transmission equip- ment manufactured in the People’s Republic of China, except that the Assistant Secretary may waive the application of this clause with respect to a project if the eligible entity that awards a subgrant for the project shows that such application would unreason- ably increase the cost of the project. (2) ELIGIBLE ENTITY OBLIGATIONS.—In distributing funds to subgrantees under this section, an eligible entity shall— (A) ensure that any prospective subgrantee— (i) is capable of carrying out activities funded by the subgrant in a competent manner in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws; (ii) has the financial and managerial capacity to meet— (I) the commitments of the subgrantee under the subgrant; H.R.3684—768 (II) the requirements of the Program; and (III) such requirements as may be further pre- scribed by the Assistant Secretary; and (iii) has the technical and operational capability to provide the services promised in the subgrant in the manner contemplated by the subgrant award; (B) stipulate, in any contract with a subgrantee for the use of such funds, reasonable provisions for recovery of funds for nonperformance; and (C)(i) distribute the funds in an equitable and non- discriminatory manner; and (ii) ensure, through a stipulation in any contract with a subgrantee for the use of such funds, that each sub- grantee uses the funds in an equitable and nondiscrim- inatory manner. (3) DEOBLIGATION OF AWARDS; INTERNET DISCLOSURE.—The Assistant Secretary— (A) shall establish, in coordination with relevant Fed- eral and State partners, appropriate mechanisms to ensure appropriate use of funds made available under this section; (B) may, in addition to other authority under applicable law— (i) deobligate grant funds awarded to an eligible entity that— (I) violates paragraph (2); or (II) demonstrates an insufficient level of performance, or wasteful or fraudulent spending, as defined in advance by the Assistant Secretary; and (ii) award grant funds that are deobligated under clause (i) to new or existing applicants consistent with this section; and (C) shall create and maintain a fully searchable data- base, accessible on the internet at no cost to the public, that contains information sufficient to allow the public to understand and monitor grants and subgrants awarded under the Program. (h) BROADBAND NETWORK DEPLOYMENT.— (1) ORDER OF AWARDS; PRIORITY.— (A) IN GENERAL.—An eligible entity, in awarding sub- grants for the deployment of a broadband network using grant funds received under this section, as authorized under subsection (f)(1)— (i) shall award funding in a manner that— (I) prioritizes unserved service projects; (II) after certifying to the Assistant Secretary that the eligible entity will ensure coverage of broadband service to all unserved locations within the eligible entity, prioritizes underserved service projects; and (III) after prioritizing underserved service projects, provides funding to connect eligible community anchor institutions; (ii) in providing funding under subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause (i), shall prioritize funding for deployment of broadband infrastructure for priority broadband projects; H.R.3684—769 (iii) may not exclude cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, public-private partnerships, private companies, public or private utilities, public utility dis- tricts, or local governments from eligibility for such grant funds; and (iv) shall give priority to projects based on— (I) deployment of a broadband network to per- sistent poverty counties or high-poverty areas; (II) the speeds of the proposed broadband service; (III) the expediency with which a project can be completed; and (IV) a demonstrated record of and plans to be in compliance with Federal labor and employ- ment laws. (B) AUTHORITY OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY.—The Assist- ant Secretary may provide additional guidance on the prioritization of subgrants awarded for the deployment of a broadband network using grant funds received under this section. (2) CHALLENGE PROCESS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—After submitting an initial proposal under subsection (e)(3) and before allocating grant funds received under this section for the deployment of broadband networks, an eligible entity shall ensure a transparent, evidence-based, and expeditious challenge process under which a unit of local government, nonprofit organization, or other broadband service provider can challenge a deter- mination made by the eligible entity in the initial proposal as to whether a particular location or community anchor institution within the jurisdiction of the eligible entity is eligible for the grant funds, including whether a particular location is unserved or underserved. (B) FINAL IDENTIFICATION; NOTIFICATION OF FUNDING ELIGIBILITY.—After resolving each challenge under subparagraph (A), and not later than 60 days before allo- cating grant funds received under this section for the deployment of broadband networks, an eligible entity shall provide public notice of the final classification of each unserved location, underserved location, or eligible commu- nity anchor institution within the jurisdiction of the eligible entity. (C) CONSULTATION WITH NTIA.—An eligible entity shall notify the Assistant Secretary of any modification to the initial proposal of the eligible entity submitted under sub- section (e)(3) that is necessitated by a successful challenge under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. (D) NTIA AUTHORITY.—The Assistant Secretary— (i) may modify the challenge process required under subparagraph (A) as necessary; and (ii) may reverse the determination of an eligible entity with respect to the eligibility of a particular location or community anchor institution for grant funds under this section. (E) EXPEDITING BROADBAND DATA COLLECTION ACTIVI- TIES.— H.R.3684—770 (i) DEADLINE FOR RESOLUTION OF CHALLENGE PROCESS UNDER BROADBAND DATA ACT.—Section 802(b)(5)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 642(b)(5)(C)(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘chal- lenges’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘challenges, which shall require that the Commission resolve a challenge not later than 90 days after the date on which a final response by a provider to a challenge to the accuracy of a map or information described in subpara- graph (A) is complete’’. (ii) PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT EXEMPTION EXPAN- SION.—Section 806(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 646(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘the initial rule making required under section 802(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘any rule making or other action by the Commission required under this title’’. (iii) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Commission shall implement the amendments made by this subpara- graph as soon as possible after the date of enactment of this Act. (3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT COSTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.— (i) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.—In allocating grant funds received under this section for deployment of broadband networks, an eligible entity shall provide, or require a subgrantee to provide, a contribution, derived from non-Federal funds (or funds from a Fed- eral regional commission or authority), except in high- cost areas or as otherwise provided by this Act, of not less than 25 percent of project costs. (ii) WAIVER.—Upon request by an eligible entity or a subgrantee, the Assistant Secretary may reduce or waive the required matching contribution under clause (i). (B) SOURCE OF MATCH.—A matching contribution under subparagraph (A)— (i) may be provided by an eligible entity, a unit of local government, a utility company, a cooperative, a nonprofit organization, a for-profit company, regional planning or governmental organization, a Federal regional commission or authority, or any combination thereof; (ii) may include in-kind contributions; and (iii) may include funds that were provided to an eligible entity or a subgrantee— (I) under— (aa) the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116–127; 134 Stat. 178); (bb) the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136; 134 Stat. 281); (cc) the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260; 134 Stat. 1182); (dd) the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117–2; 135 Stat. 4); or H.R.3684—771 (ee) any amendment made by an Act described in any of items (aa) through (dd); and (II) for the purpose of deployment of broadband service, as described in the applicable provision of law described in subclause (I). (C) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘Federal regional commission or authority’’ means— (i) the Appalachian Regional Commission; (ii) the Delta Regional Authority; (iii) the Denali Commission; and (iv) the Northern Border Regional Commission. (4) DEPLOYMENT AND PROVISION OF SERVICE REQUIRE- MENTS.—An entity that receives a subgrant under subsection (f)(1) for the deployment of a broadband network— (A) in providing broadband service using the network— (i) shall provide broadband service— (I) at a speed of not less than 100 megabits per second for downloads and 20 megabits per second for uploads; (II) with a latency that is sufficiently low to allow reasonably foreseeable, real-time, interactive applications; and (III) with network outages that do not exceed, on average, 48 hours over any 365-day period; and (ii) shall provide access to broadband service to each customer served by the project that desires broadband service; (B) shall offer not less than 1 low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers, as those terms are defined in paragraph (5) of this subsection; (C) shall deploy the broadband network and begin pro- viding broadband service to each customer that desires broadband service not later than 4 years after the date on which the entity receives the subgrant, except that an eligible entity may extend the deadline under this subparagraph if— (i) the eligible entity has a plan for use of the grant funds; (ii) the construction project is underway; or (iii) extenuating circumstances require an exten- sion of time to allow the project to be completed; (D) for any project that involves laying fiber optic cables or conduit underground or along a roadway, shall include interspersed conduit access points at regular and short intervals; (E) may use the subgrant to deploy broadband infra- structure in or through any area required to reach inter- connection points or otherwise to ensure the technical feasi- bility and financial sustainability of a project providing broadband service to an unserved location, underserved location, or eligible community anchor institution; (F) once the network has been deployed, shall provide public notice, online and through other means, of that fact to the locations and areas to which broadband service H.R.3684—772 has been provided and share the public notice with the eligible entity that awarded the subgrant; (G) shall carry out public awareness campaigns in service areas that are designed to highlight the value and benefits of broadband service in order to increase the adop- tion of broadband service by consumers; and (H) if the entity is no longer able to provide broadband service to the locations covered by the subgrant at any time, shall sell the network capacity at a reasonable, whole- sale rate on a nondiscriminatory basis to other broadband service providers or public sector entities. (5) LOW-COST BROADBAND SERVICE OPTION.— (A) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph— (i) the term ‘‘eligible subscriber’’ shall have the meaning given the term by the Assistant Secretary for purposes of this paragraph; and (ii) the term ‘‘low-cost broadband service option’’ shall be defined by an eligible entity for subgrantees of the eligible entity in accordance with subparagraph (B). (B) DEFINING ‘‘LOW-COST BROADBAND SERVICE OPTION’’.— (i) PROPOSAL.—An eligible entity shall submit to the Assistant Secretary for approval, in the final pro- posal of the eligible entity submitted under subsection (e)(4), a proposed definition of ‘‘low-cost broadband service option’’ that shall apply to subgrantees of the eligible entity for purposes of the requirement under paragraph (4)(B) of this subsection. (ii) CONSULTATION.—An eligible entity shall con- sult with the Assistant Secretary and prospective sub- grantees regarding a proposed definition of ‘‘low-cost broadband service option’’ before submitting the pro- posed definition to the Assistant Secretary under clause (i). (iii) APPROVAL OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY.— (I) IN GENERAL.—A proposed definition of ‘‘low- cost broadband service option’’ submitted by an eligible entity under clause (i) shall not take effect until the Assistant Secretary approves the final proposal of the eligible entity submitted under sub- section (e)(4), including approval of the proposed definition of ‘‘low-cost broadband service option’’. (II) RESUBMISSION.—If the Assistant Secretary does not approve a proposed definition of ‘‘low- cost broadband service option’’ submitted by an eligible entity under clause (i), the Assistant Sec- retary shall— (aa) notify the eligible entity and provide the eligible entity with an opportunity to resubmit the final proposal, as provided in subsection (e)(4), with an improved definition of ‘‘low-cost broadband service option’’; and (bb) provide the eligible entity with instructions on how to cure the defects in the proposed definition. H.R.3684—773 (iv) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.—After the Assistant Sec- retary approves the final proposal of an eligible entity under subsection (e)(4), and before the Assistant Sec- retary disburses any funds to the eligible entity based on that approval, the Assistant Secretary shall publicly disclose the eligible entity’s definition of ‘‘low-cost broadband service option’’. (C) NONPERFORMANCE.—The Assistant Secretary shall develop procedures under which the Assistant Secretary or an eligible entity may— (i) evaluate the compliance of a subgrantee with the requirement under paragraph (4)(B); and (ii) take corrective action, including recoupment of funds from the subgrantee, for noncompliance with the requirement under paragraph (4)(B). (D) NO REGULATION OF RATES PERMITTED.—Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service. (E) GUIDANCE.—The Assistant Secretary may issue guidance to eligible entities to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. (6) RETURN OF FUNDS.—An entity that receives a subgrant from an eligible entity under subsection (f) and fails to comply with any requirement under this subsection shall return up to the entire amount of the subgrant to the eligible entity, at the discretion of the eligible entity or the Assistant Secretary. (i) REGULATIONS.—The Assistant Secretary may issue such regulations or other guidance, forms, instructions, and publications as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the programs, projects, or activities authorized under this section, including to ensure that those programs, projects, or activities are completed in a timely and effective manner. (j) REPORTING.— (1) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.— (A) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after receiving grant funds under this section, for the sole pur- poses of providing transparency and providing information to inform future Federal broadband planning, an eligible entity shall submit to the Assistant Secretary a report that— (i) describes the planned and actual use of funds; (ii) describes the planned and actual process of subgranting; (iii) identifies the establishment of appropriate mechanisms by the eligible entity to ensure that all subgrantees of the eligible entity comply with the eligible uses prescribed under subsection (f); and (iv) includes any other information required by the Assistant Secretary. (B) SEMIANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after receiving grant funds under this section, and semiannually thereafter until the funds have been expended, an eligible entity shall submit to the Assistant Secretary a report, with respect to the 6-month period immediately preceding the report date, that— H.R.3684—774 (i) describes how the eligible entity expended the grant funds; (ii) describes each service provided with the grant funds; (iii) describes the number of locations at which broadband service was made available using the grant funds, and the number of those locations at which broadband service was utilized; and (iv) certifies that the eligible entity complied with the requirements of this section and with any addi- tional reporting requirements prescribed by the Assist- ant Secretary. (C) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after an eligible entity has expended all grant funds received under this section, the eligible entity shall submit to the Assistant Secretary a report that— (i) describes how the eligible entity expended the funds; (ii) describes each service provided with the grant funds; (iii) describes the number of locations at which broadband service was made available using the grant funds, and the number of those locations at which broadband service was utilized; (iv) includes each report that the eligible entity received from a subgrantee under paragraph (2); and (v) certifies that the eligible entity complied with the requirements of this section and with any addi- tional reporting requirements prescribed by the Assist- ant Secretary. (D) PROVISION TO FCC AND USDA.—Subject to section 904(b)(2) of division FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260) (relating to an interagency agreement), the Assistant Secretary shall coordinate with the Commission and the Department of Agriculture, including providing the final reports received under subparagraph (C) to the Commission and the Department of Agriculture to be used when determining whether to award funds for the deployment of broadband under any program administered by those agencies. (E) FEDERAL AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENT.— (i) DEFINITIONS.—In this subparagraph, the terms ‘‘agency’’ and ‘‘Federal broadband support program’’ have the meanings given those terms in section 903 of division FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260) (also known as the ‘‘ACCESS BROADBAND Act’’). (ii) REQUIREMENT.—An agency that offers a Fed- eral broadband support program shall provide data to the Assistant Secretary, in a manner and format prescribed by the Assistant Secretary, to promote coordination of efforts to track construction and use of broadband infrastructure. (2) SUBGRANTEES.— (A) SEMIANNUAL REPORT.—The recipient of a subgrant from an eligible entity under this section shall submit to the eligible entity a semiannual report for the duration H.R.3684—775 of the subgrant to track the effectiveness of the use of funds provided. (B) CONTENTS.—Each report submitted under subpara- graph (A) shall— (i) describe each type of project carried out using the subgrant and the duration of the subgrant; (ii) in the case of a broadband infrastructure project— (I) include a list of addresses or locations that constitute the service locations that will be served by the broadband infrastructure to be constructed; (II) identify whether each address or location described in subclause (I) is residential, commer- cial, or a community anchor institution; (III) describe the types of facilities that have been constructed and installed; (IV) describe the peak and off-peak actual speeds of the broadband service being offered; (V) describe the maximum advertised speed of the broadband service being offered; (VI) describe the non-promotional prices, including any associated fees, charged for different tiers of broadband service being offered; (VII) include any other data that would be required to comply with the data and mapping collection standards of the Commission under sec- tion 1.7004 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, for broadband infra- structure projects; and (VIII) comply with any other reasonable reporting requirements determined by the eligible entity or the Assistant Secretary; and (iii) certify that the information in the report is accurate. (3) STANDARDIZATION AND COORDINATION.—The Assistant Secretary and the Commission shall collaborate to— (A) standardize and coordinate reporting of locations at which broadband service was provided using grant funds received under this section in accordance with title VIII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 641 et seq.); and (B) provide a standardized methodology to recipients of grants and subgrantees under this section for reporting the information described in subparagraph (A). (4) INFORMATION ON BROADBAND SUBSIDIES AND LOW- INCOME PLANS.— (A) ESTABLISHMENT OF WEBSITE.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, shall establish a publicly available website that— (i) allows a consumer to determine, based on finan- cial information entered by the consumer, whether the consumer is eligible— (I) to receive a Federal or State subsidy with respect to broadband service; or (II) for a low-income plan with respect to broadband service; and H.R.3684—776 (ii) contains information regarding how to apply for the applicable benefit described in clause (i). (B) PROVISION OF DATA.—A Federal entity, State entity receiving Federal funds, or provider of broadband service that offers a subsidy or low-income plan, as applicable, with respect to broadband service shall provide data to the Assistant Secretary in a manner and format as estab- lished by the Assistant Secretary as necessary for the Assistant Secretary to carry out subparagraph (A). (k) RELATION TO OTHER PUBLIC FUNDING.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law— (1) an entity that has received amounts from the Federal Government or a State or local government for the purpose of expanding access to broadband service may receive a subgrant under subsection (f) in accordance with this section; and (2) the receipt of a subgrant under subsection (f) by an entity described in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not affect the eligibility of the entity to receive the amounts from the Federal Government or a State or local government described in that paragraph. (l) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.—Grant funds awarded to an eligible entity under this section shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, the amounts that the eligible entity would other- wise make available for the purposes for which the grant funds may be used. (m) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION.—It is the sense of Congress that Federal agencies responsible for supporting broadband deployment, including the Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture, to the extent possible, should align the goals, applica- tion and reporting processes, and project requirements with respect to broadband deployment supported by those agencies. (n) JUDICIAL REVIEW.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review a decision of the Assistant Secretary made under this section. (2) STANDARD OF REVIEW.—In carrying out any review described in paragraph (1), the court shall affirm the decision of the Assistant Secretary unless— (A) the decision was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (B) there was actual partiality or corruption in the Assistant Secretary; or (C) the Assistant Secretary was guilty of— (i) misconduct in refusing to review the administra- tive record; or (ii) any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. (o) EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN LAWS.—Any action taken or deci- sion made by the Assistant Secretary under this section shall be exempt from the requirements of— (1) section 3506 of title 44, United States Code (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’); (2) chapter 5 or 7 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Administrative Procedures Act’’); and H.R.3684—777 (3) chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act’’). SEC. 60103. BROADBAND DATA MAPS. (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Communications Commission. (b) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—A broadband provider shall provide the Commission with any information, in the format, type, or specification requested by the Commission, necessary to augment the collection of data by the Commission under— (1) title VIII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 641 et seq.); or (2) the Form 477 data collection program. (c) NOTICE OF INITIAL BROADBAND DATA COLLECTION FILING DEADLINE.—The Commission— (1) shall provide notice to broadband providers not later than 60 days before the initial deadline for submission of data under section 802(a)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 642(a)(1)(A)); and (2) notwithstanding any prior decision of the Commission to the contrary, shall not be required to provide notice not later than 6 months before the initial deadline described in paragraph (1). (d) AVAILABILITY OF CENSUS DATA.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 802(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 802(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(D) AVAILABILITY OF CENSUS DATA.—The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the Commission, for inclusion in the Fabric, a count of the aggregate number of housing units in each census block, as collected by the Bureau of the Census.’’. (2) PROVISION OF UPDATED 2020 CENSUS DATA.—Not later than 30 days after receiving a request from the Commission, the Secretary of Commerce, in implementing the amendment made by paragraph (1), shall provide the Commission with a count of the aggregate number of housing units in each census block, as collected during the 2020 decennial census of population. (e) PUBLICATION OF BROADBAND DATA MAPS ON INTERNET.— Section 802(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 642(c)(6)) is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (6), by inserting ‘‘, including on a publicly available website,’’ after ‘‘make public’’. SEC. 60104. REPORT ON FUTURE OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND. (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— (1) the term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Communica- tions Commission; and (2) the term ‘‘universal service goals for broadband’’ means the statutorily mandated goals of universal service for advanced telecommunications capability under section 706 of the Tele- communications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 1302). (b) EVALUATION.—Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall commence a proceeding to evaluate the implications of this Act and the amendments made by this Act on how the Commission should achieve the universal service goals for broadband. H.R.3684—778 (c) REPORT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to Con- gress a report on the options of the Commission for improving its effectiveness in achieving the universal service goals for broadband in light of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and other legislation that addresses those goals. (2) RECOMMENDATIONS.—In the report submitted under paragraph (1), the Commission may make recommendations for Congress on further actions the Commission and Congress could take to improve the ability of the Commission to achieve the universal service goals for broadband. (3) SCOPE OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE.—In submitting the report under paragraph (1), the Commission— (A) may not in any way reduce the congressional man- date to achieve the universal service goals for broadband; and (B) may provide recommendations for Congress to expand the universal service goals for broadband, if the Commission believes such an expansion is in the public interest. SEC. 60105. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT LOCATIONS MAP. (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: (1) BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE.—The term ‘‘broadband infrastructure’’ means any cables, fiber optics, wiring, or other permanent (integral to the structure) infrastructure, including wireless infrastructure, that— (A) is capable of providing access to internet connec- tions in individual locations; and (B) is an advanced telecommunications capability, as defined in section 706(d) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 1302(d)). (2) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Fed- eral Communications Commission. (3) DEPLOYMENT LOCATIONS MAP.—The term ‘‘Deployment Locations Map’’ means the mapping tool required to be estab- lished under subsection (b). (b) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPLOYMENT LOCATIONS MAP.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, in consultation with all relevant Federal agencies, establish an online mapping tool to provide a locations overview of the overall geographic footprint of each broadband infrastructure deployment project funded by the Federal Govern- ment. (c) REQUIREMENTS.—The Deployment Locations Map shall be— (1) the centralized, authoritative source of information on funding made available by the Federal Government for broadband infrastructure deployment in the United States; and (2) made publicly available on the website of the Commis- sion. (d) FUNCTIONS.—In establishing the Deployment Locations Map, the Commission shall ensure that the Deployment Locations Map— (1) compiles data related to Federal funding for broadband infrastructure deployment provided by the Commission, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, H.R.3684—779 the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Treasury, the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development, the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, and any other Federal agency that provides such data relating to broadband infrastructure deployment funding to the Commission, including funding under— (A) this Act; (B) the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public Law 116–136); (C) the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260); (D) American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117–2); or (E) any Federal amounts appropriated or any Federal program authorized after the date of enactment of this Act to fund broadband infrastructure deployment; (2) contains data, with respect to each broadband infra- structure deployment program, relating to— (A) the Federal agency of jurisdiction; (B) the program title; and (C) the network type, including wired, terrestrial fixed, wireless, mobile, and satellite broadband infrastructure deployment; (3) allows users to manipulate the Deployment Locations Map to identify, search, and filter broadband infrastructure deployment projects by— (A) company name; (B) duration timeline, including the dates of a project’s beginning and ending, or anticipated beginning or ending date; (C) total number of locations to which a project makes service available; and (D) relevant download and upload speeds; and (4) incorporates broadband service availability data as depicted in the Broadband Map created under section 802(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 642(c)(1)). (e) PERIODIC UPDATES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall, in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, ensure the Deployment Loca- tions Map is maintained and up to date on a periodic basis, but not less frequently than once every 180 days. (2) OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Each Federal agency pro- viding funding for broadband infrastructure deployment shall report relevant data to the Commission on a periodic basis. (f) NO EFFECT ON PROGRAMMATIC MISSIONS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the programmatic missions of Federal agencies providing funding for broadband infrastructure development. (g) NONDUPLICATION.—The requirements in this section shall be consistent with and avoid duplication with the provisions of section 903 of division FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260). (h) FUNDING.—Of the amounts appropriated to carry out this division under this Act, $10,000,000 shall be made available to carry out this section. 1122 Federal Register /Vol. 87, No. 6/Monday, January 10, 2022/Notices have not received their own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the China exporter that supplied that non-China exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1). Dated: January 4, 2022. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Tainai’s Eligibility for a Separate Rate Comment 2: Application of Adverse Facts Available to Tainai Comment 3: Surrogate Values for Certain Factors of Production Comment 4: Surrogate Value for Bearing Steel Comment 5: Romanian Surrogate Financial Ratios Comment 6: Applicability of Surrogate Financial Ratios Comment 7: Deduction of Section 301 Duties Comment 8: Capping Section 301 Duty Payments Comment 9: By-Product Offset Comment 10: Tainai’s Weighted-Average Dumping Margin Comment 11: Exclusion of Precision Components Inc.’s Imports from the Order VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–00217 Filed 1–7–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648–XB705] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a joint public meeting of its Scallop Advisory Panel via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: This webinar will be held on Wednesday, January 26, 2022, at 9 a.m. Webinar registration URL information: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/ register/5215827395962115339. ADDRESSES: Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda The Advisory Panel will receive an update on the implementation timeline for Framework Adjustment 34 and Amendment 21. They plan to review 2022 scallop workload based on priorities approved by the Council at its December meeting and discuss potential timelines for completing each task. The panel will review a draft scoping document that will be used to assess: (1) The need for a leasing program, and (2) what should the leasing program consider. Other business will be discussed, if necessary. Although non- emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: January 5, 2022. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2022–00176 Filed 1–7–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 220105–0002] RIN 0660–ZA33 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Implementation AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice, Request for Comment. SUMMARY: On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 into law, also known (and referred to subsequently herein) as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which includes a historic investment of $65 billion to help close the digital divide and ensure that all Americans have access to reliable, affordable, high- speed broadband. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), is responsible for distributing more than $48 billion in VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 Jan 07, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM 10JAN1kh a m m o n d o n D S K J M 1 Z 7 X 2 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 1123 Federal Register /Vol. 87, No. 6/Monday, January 10, 2022/Notices BIL broadband funding through several different programs. NTIA has established multiple avenues for the public to offer input to inform program design and implementation. This includes a series of public virtual listening sessions (see ADDRESSES below) as well as the opportunity for stakeholders across the nation to make their views known in response to this Notice and Request for Comment (Notice). NTIA welcomes input from all interested parties. DATES: Submit written comments on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 4, 2022. ADDRESSES: All electronic public comments on this action, identified by Regs.gov docket number NTIA–2021– 0002, may be submitted through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. The docket established for this rulemaking can be found at www.Regulations.gov, NTIA– 2021–0002. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Responders should include a page number on each page of their submissions. Please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to Regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Information obtained as a result of this notice may be used by the federal government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. In addition to inviting written submissions through this Notice, NTIA is hosting a series of public virtual listening sessions. More information about the listening sessions can be found at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ federal-register-notice/2021/broadband- grant-programs-public-virtual-listening- sessions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please direct questions regarding this Notice to BroadbandForAll@ntia.gov, indicating ‘‘Notice and Request for Comment’’ in the subject line, or if by mail, addressed to National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2048. Please direct media inquiries to NTIA’s Office of Public Affairs, press@ntia.gov or (202) 482– 7002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background With the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress has taken a significant step forward in achieving the Biden-Harris Administration’s goal of ensuring all Americans have access to affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law sets forth a $65 billion investment into broadband, more than $48 billion of which will be administered by NTIA’s Office of internet Connectivity and Growth. This investment will leverage NTIA’s experience in promoting broadband infrastructure development and digital inclusion efforts through its BroadbandUSA initiative as well as other NTIA grant programs, including the Broadband Infrastructure Program, the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP), and the Connecting Minority Communities (CMC) Pilot Program. Additionally, this investment will enhance other established Federal broadband initiatives offered through the U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This Notice is part of NTIA’s strategy to engage with partners and other stakeholders to help meet the President’s goal to close the digital divide. This is a historic investment, and it requires not only a whole-of- government effort, but a whole-of- country effort. This Notice seeks public comment to bolster NTIA’s work and to improve the number and quality of ideas under consideration as the agency develops Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs) for each of the broadband grant programs to be implemented by NTIA pursuant to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. II. Objectives of This Notice This Notice offers an opportunity for all interested parties to provide vital input and recommendations for consideration in the development of broadband programs established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for implementation by NTIA. This Notice seeks comment on several Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grant programs to be administered by NTIA: The Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, the Middle-Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program, and the Digital Equity Planning Grant Program. NTIA intends to release a future request for comment on the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program and Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program. In addition, given the unique nature of the nation- to-nation relationship, NTIA will conduct a Tribal consultation to gather input on questions related to the additional funding appropriated for the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, an NTIA program previously implemented under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. III. Request for Comments NTIA welcomes input on any matter that commenters believe is important to NTIA’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law implementation efforts. Commenters are invited to comment on the full range of issues presented by this Notice, and are encouraged to address any or all of the following questions, or to provide additional information relevant to implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s broadband programs. In particular, we invite commenters who have applied to or had experience with other federal or state broadband funding programs to offer suggestions for how to effectively implement these new funding programs, based on their experiences. When responding to one or more of the questions below, please note in the text of your response the number of the question to which you are responding. As part of their response, commenters are welcome to provide specific actionable proposals, rationales and relevant factual information. NTIA seeks public comment on the following questions: General Questions Bringing Reliable, Affordable, High- Speed Broadband to All Americans 1. What are the most important steps NTIA can take to ensure that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s broadband programs meet their goals with respect to access, adoption, affordability, digital equity, and digital inclusion? 2. Obtaining stakeholder input is critical to the success of this effort. How best can NTIA ensure that all voices and perspectives are heard and brought to bear on questions relating to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s broadband programs? Are there steps NTIA can and should take beyond those described above? 3. Transparency and public accountability are critical to the success of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s broadband programs. What types of data should NTIA require funding recipients to collect and maintain to facilitate assessment of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law programs’ impact, evaluate targets, promote accountability, and/or coordinate with other federal VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 Jan 07, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM 10JAN1kh a m m o n d o n D S K J M 1 Z 7 X 2 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 1124 Federal Register /Vol. 87, No. 6/Monday, January 10, 2022/Notices and state programs? Are there existing data collection processes or templates that could be used as a model? How should this information be reported and analyzed, and what standards, if any, should NTIA, grant recipients, and/or sub-grantees apply in determining whether funds are being used lawfully and effectively? 4. NTIA has an interest in ensuring that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is implemented in a way that promotes the efficient use of federal funds. How should NTIA and grant recipients verify that funding is used in a way that complements other federal and state broadband programs? Supporting States, Territories, and Sub- Grantees To Achieve the Goal 5. In implementing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s programs, NTIA will offer technical assistance to states, localities, prospective sub-grantees, and other interested parties. What kinds of technical assistance would be most valuable? How might technical assistance evolve over the duration of the grant program implementation? 6. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires states and territories to competitively select subgrantees to deploy broadband, carry out digital equity programs, and accomplish other tasks. How should NTIA assess a particular state or territory’s subgrant award process? What criteria, if any, should NTIA apply to evaluate such processes? What process steps, if any, should NTIA require (e.g., Request for Proposal)? Are there specific types of competitive subgrant processes that should be presumed eligible (e.g., publicly released requests for proposals and reverse auctions)? 7. NTIA views the participation of a variety of provider types as important to achieving the overall goals of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law broadband programs. How can NTIA ensure that all potential subrecipients, including small and medium providers, cooperatives, non-profits, municipalities, electric utilities, and larger for-profit companies alike have meaningful and robust opportunities to partner and compete for funding under the programs? 8. States and regions across the country face a variety of barriers to achieving the goal of universal, affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband and broadband needs, which vary from place to place. These challenges range from economic and financial circumstances to unique geographic conditions, topologies, or other challenges that will impact the likelihood of success of this program. In implementing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s broadband programs, how can NTIA best address such circumstances? 9. Several Bipartisan Infrastructure Law broadband programs provide that, absent a waiver, a grant or subgrant recipient must contribute its own funding, or funding obtained from a non-federal source, to ‘‘match’’ funding provided by the BIL program. Under what circumstances, if any, should NTIA agree to waive these matching fund requirements, and what criteria should it assess (in accordance with any criteria established by the statute) when considering waiver requests? Ensuring the Future of America Is Made in America by All of America’s Workers 10. The COVID–19 pandemic has disrupted global supply chains and impacted employment patterns. What is the likely impact of current workforce and supply chain constraints on the speed with which states, service providers, and others achieve the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s network- deployment objectives? Are the areas unserved or underserved by broadband networks, which will see substantial new deployments under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s broadband provisions, likely to face particularly significant workforce or supply-chain constraints? What steps, if any, should NTIA take to mitigate the impact of workforce or supply-chain limitations? 11. One objective of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is to ensure American workers have access to high quality jobs, especially those who were impacted the most by the pandemic, including women and people of color. What federal policy tools can NTIA apply to help ensure that broadband funding is deployed in a way that maximizes the creation of good paying jobs and that women and people of color have full opportunity to secure those jobs. 12. What steps, if any, should NTIA take to ensure maximum use of American-made network components and that supply shortages are addressed in ways that create high quality jobs for all Americans? What impact, if any, will application of the ‘‘Buy American’’ requirements in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have on supply- chain and workforce challenges and on the speed with which the nation can reach the goal of 100% broadband connectivity? Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program The BEAD Program is a $42.45 billion program for states, territories, the District of Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico (P.R.) (‘‘states and territories’’) to utilize for broadband deployment, mapping, equity and adoption projects. Each state, DC, and P.R. will receive an initial allocation of $100 million—and $100 million will be divided equally among the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. NTIA will distribute the remaining funding based on a formula that considers the number of unserved and high-cost locations in the state, based on the updated broadband availability maps to be published by the FCC. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also provides NTIA with discretion to establish additional eligible uses for the funding. BEAD program funding will be dispersed in three phases. The first phase allows states and territories to access up to $5 million each to support planning efforts, including building capacity in state broadband offices and to fund outreach and coordination activities with local communities and stakeholders. The second phase requires states and territories to submit an initial broadband plan to NTIA. These plans must be informed by collaboration with local and regional entities and will lay out how each respective state and territory will use the BEAD funding and other funds to bring reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband to all residents. Once NTIA approves the initial plan, states and territories will be able to access additional funds from their BEAD allocation. States and territories will be able to access the remaining funds upon review and approval of a final plan by NTIA. Ensuring Publicly Funded Broadband Networks That Sustain and Scale 13. NTIA is committed to ensuring that networks built using taxpayer funds are capable of meeting Americans’ evolving digital needs, including broadband speeds and other essential network features. What guidance or requirements, if any, should NTIA consider with respect to network reliability and availability, cybersecurity, resiliency, latency, or other service quality features and metrics? What criteria should NTIA establish to assess grant recipients’ plans to ensure that service providers maintain and/or exceed thresholds for reliability, quality of service, sustainability, upgradability and other required service characteristics? 14. NTIA is committed to ensuring that networks constructed using taxpayer funds are designed to provide robust and sustainable service at affordable prices over the long term. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 Jan 07, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM 10JAN1kh a m m o n d o n D S K J M 1 Z 7 X 2 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 1125 Federal Register /Vol. 87, No. 6/Monday, January 10, 2022/Notices What criteria should NTIA require states to consider to ensure that projects will provide sustainable service, will best serve unserved and underserved communities, will provide accessible and affordable broadband in historically disconnected communities, and will benefit from ongoing investment from the network provider over time? 15. In its effort to ensure that BEAD- funded networks can scale to meet Americans’ evolving needs, and to ensure the public achieves the greatest benefit from the federal investment, NTIA seeks to understand reasonably foreseeable use cases for America’s broadband infrastructure over the next five, ten, and twenty years. What sort of speeds, throughput, latencies, or other metrics will be required to fully connect all Americans to meaningful use over the next five, ten, and twenty years? How can the BEAD program meet our nation’s broadband network connectivity needs in the future and what other benefits can Americans expect from this program and the networks it will help fund in other industries and across the economy? How can existing infrastructure be leveraged to facilitate and amplify these benefits? What are the best sources of evidence for these questions and for predicted future uses of broadband? Allocation and Use of BEAD Funds To Achieve Universal, Reliable, Affordable, High-Speed Broadband 16. Broadband deployment projects can take months or years to complete. As a result, there are numerous areas where an entity has made commitments to deploy service—using its own funding, government funding, or a combination of the two—but in which service has not yet been deployed. How should NTIA treat prior buildout commitments that are not reflected in the updated FCC maps because the projects themselves are not yet complete? What risks should be mitigated in considering these areas as ‘‘served’’ in the goal to connect all Americans to reliable, affordable, high- speed broadband? 17. Ten percent of total BEAD funding is reserved for distribution based on how many unserved locations within a state or territory are also locations in which the cost to deploy service is higher than the nationwide average. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides that, in calculating the cost of deployment, NTIA should consider factors such as the area’s remoteness, population density, topography, poverty rate, or ‘‘any other factor identified by the Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the [FCC], that contributes to the higher cost of deploying broadband service in the area.’’ BIL §60102(a)(2)(G). What additional factors, if any, should NTIA consider in determining what constitutes a ‘‘high- cost area’’? 18. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides that BEAD funding can be used in a variety of specific ways, including the provision of service to unserved and underserved areas, connection of community anchor institutions, data collection, installation of service within multi-family residential buildings, and broadband adoption programs. The law also permits the Assistant Secretary to designate other eligible uses that facilitate the program’s goals. What additional uses, if any, should NTIA deem eligible for BEAD funding? Establishing Strong Partnerships Between State, Local, and Tribal Governments 19. Community engagement is critical to eliminating barriers to broadband access and adoption. NTIA views strong involvement between states and local communities as key to ensuring that the broadband needs of all unserved and underserved locations are accounted for in state plans submitted for funding. What requirements should NTIA establish for states/territories to ensure that local perspectives are critical factors in the design of state plans? 20. When formulating state broadband plans, what state agencies or stakeholder groups should be considered in the development of those plans? 21. How can NTIA ensure that states/ territories consult with Tribal governments about how best to meet Tribal members’ needs when providing funding for broadband service to unserved and underserved locations on Tribal lands within state boundaries? Low-Cost Broadband Service Option and Other Ways To Address Affordability 22. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires that BEAD funding recipients offer at least one low-cost broadband option and directs NTIA to determine which subscribers are eligible for that low-cost option. BIL §60102(h)(5)(A). How should NTIA define the term ‘‘eligible subscriber?’’ In other words, what factors should qualify an individual or household for a low-cost broadband option? 23. Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, states and territories are charged with developing low-cost broadband service options in consultation with NTIA and broadband providers interested in receiving funding within the state. BIL §60102(h)(5)(B). What factors should NTIA consider in guiding the states in design of these programs to achieve this goal? Should NTIA define a baseline standard for the ‘‘low-cost broadband service option’’ to encourage states/ territories to adopt similar or identical definitions and to reduce the administrative costs associated with requiring providers to offer disparate plans in each state and territory? What are the benefits and risks, if any, of such an approach? 24. Affordability is a key objective of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s broadband programs. What factors should be considered in the deployment of BEAD funds to help drive affordability beyond the low-cost option? Implementation of the Digital Equity Act of 2021 The Digital Equity Act dedicated $2.75 billion to establish three grant programs that promote digital inclusion and equity to ensure that all individuals and communities have the skills, technology, and capacity needed to reap the full benefits of our digital economy. The goal of these programs is to promote the meaningful adoption and use of broadband services across targeted populations, including low-income households, aging populations, incarcerated individuals, veterans, individuals with disabilities, individuals with a language barrier, racial and ethnic minorities, and rural inhabitants. As noted above, given the sequence of programs that NTIA is implementing, NTIA intends to release another request for comment (RFC) in the future to address the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program and Digital Equity Competitive Grant Programs. The questions below are specific to the Digital Equity Planning Grant Program. State Digital Equity Plans 25. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes historic investments in digital inclusion and digital equity, promising to bring all Americans the benefits of connectivity irrespective of age, income, race or ethnicity, sex, gender, disability status, veteran status, or any other characteristic. NTIA seeks to ensure that states use Digital Equity Planning Grants to their best effect. What are the best practices NTIA should require of states in building Digital Equity Plans? What are the most effective digital equity and adoption interventions states should include in their digital equity plans and what evidence of outcomes exists for those solutions? VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 Jan 07, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM 10JAN1kh a m m o n d o n D S K J M 1 Z 7 X 2 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 1126 Federal Register /Vol. 87, No. 6/Monday, January 10, 2022/Notices 26. Some states and territories will benefit from technical assistance in preparing Digital Equity Plans. What types of technical assistance, support, data, or programmatic requirements should NTIA provide to states and territories to produce State Digital Equity Plans that fully address gaps in broadband adoption, promote digital skills, advance equitable access to education, healthcare and government services, and build information technology capacity to enable full participation in the economy for covered populations? What steps, if any, should NTIA take to monitor and assess these practices? 27. Equity is also a named goal of the BEAD program described above. How should NTIA ensure that State Digital Equity Plans and the plans created by states and territories for the BEAD program are complementary, sequenced and integrated appropriately to address the goal of universal broadband access and adoption? 28. How should NTIA ensure that State Digital Equity Plans impact and interact with the State’s goals, plans and outcomes related to: (i) Economic and workforce development; (ii) education; (iii) health; (iv) civic and social engagement; (v) climate and critical infrastructure resiliency; and (vi) delivery of other essential services, especially with respect to covered populations mentioned in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law §60303(2)(C)? 29. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directs states and territories to include in their digital equity plans ‘‘measurable objectives for documenting and promoting: (i) The availability of, and affordability of access to, fixed and wireless broadband technology; (ii) the online accessibility and inclusivity of public resources and services; (iii) digital literacy; (iv) awareness of, and the use of, measures to secure the online privacy of, and cybersecurity with respect to, an individual; and (v) the availability and affordability of consumer devices and technical support for those devices.’’ What best practices, if any, should states follow in developing such objectives? What steps, if any, should NTIA take to promote or require adoption of these best practices? What additional guidance and oversight about the content of the State Digital Equity Plans should NTIA provide? Digital Equity Coordination Requirements 30. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires state and territories to consult with historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups, including individuals who live in low-income households, aging individuals, incarcerated individuals (other than individuals who are incarcerated in a Federal correctional facility), veterans, individuals with disabilities, individuals with a language barrier (including individuals who are English learners and have low levels of literacy), individuals who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group, and individuals who primarily reside in a rural area. What steps should NTIA take to ensure that states consult with these groups as well as any other potential beneficiaries of digital inclusion and digital equity programs, when planning, developing, and implementing their State Digital Equity Plans? What steps, if any, should NTIA take to monitor and assess these practices? 31. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also requires states and territories to coordinate with local governments and other political subdivisions in developing State Digital Equity Plans. What steps should states take to fulfill this mandate? How should NTIA assess whether a state has engaged in adequate coordination with its political subdivisions? Implementation of Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure (MMBI) Grant Program This MMBI is a $1 billion program for the construction, improvement, or acquisition of middle-mile infrastructure. The purpose of the grant program is to expand and extend middle-mile infrastructure to reduce the cost of connecting unserved and underserved areas to the internet backbone. Eligible applicants include states, political subdivisions of a State, tribal governments, technology companies, electric utilities, utility cooperatives, public utility districts, telecommunications companies, telecommunications cooperatives, nonprofit foundations, nonprofit corporations, nonprofit institutions, nonprofit associations, regional planning councils, Native entities, or economic development authorities. 32. Middle-mile infrastructure is essential to American connectivity. Lack of affordable middle-mile access can have a substantial impact on the retail prices charged for broadband services. How should the Assistant Secretary ensure that middle-mile investments are appropriately targeted to areas where middle-mile service is non-existent or relatively expensive? To what extent should middle-mile grants be targeted to areas in which middle-mile facilities exist but cannot economically be utilized by providers that do not own them? Should NTIA target middle-mile funds to areas where interconnection and backhaul costs are impacted by a lack of competition or other high-cost factors? 33. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s provisions regarding the Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Grant Program set out a range of considerations governing NTIA’s assessment of proposals seeking middle- mile funding, including improving affordability, redundancy and resiliency in existing markets, leveraging existing rights-of-way, assets, and infrastructure, and facilitating the development of carrier-neutral interconnection points. See BIL §60401(e), (b)(2), (d)(2). How should NTIA implement these requirements, and the others listed in the legislation, in prioritizing middle- mile grant applications? 34. What requirements, if any, should NTIA impose on federally funded middle-mile projects with respect to the placement of splice points and access to those splice points? Should NTIA impose other requirements regarding the location or locations at which a middle- mile grantee must allow interconnection by other providers? 35. How can the Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure program leverage existing middle-mile facilities, access to rights of way, poles, conduit, and other infrastructure and capabilities that are owned, operated, or maintained by traditional and non-traditional providers (public and investor-owned utilities, grid operators, co-ops, academic institutions, cloud service providers, and others) to accelerate the deployment of affordable, accessible, high-speed broadband service to all Americans? What technical assistance or guidance should NTIA provide to encourage applications for this program? Are there examples of successful deployments and/or benefits provided by non-traditional providers to highlight? 36. As network demand grows, capacity needs in the middle mile and network core grow as well. What scalability requirements, if any, should NTIA place on middle-mile grant recipients? Dated: January 5, 2022. Evelyn Remaley Hasch, Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information. [FR Doc. 2022–00221 Filed 1–7–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–60–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:16 Jan 07, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM 10JAN1kh a m m o n d o n D S K J M 1 Z 7 X 2 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Enberg, Nicholas; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Jonsen, Robert; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Planning Commission; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Rebecca Eisenberg; Joe Simitian; Jeff Moore; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu Subject:With your blessing in the Infamous Jorge Hernandez case Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 8:43:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Brian, https://twitter.com/pafreepress/status/1484112143511400449?s=21 Mark Petersen-Perez Editor in chief Palo Alto Free Press Reporting from Nicaragua PS. Mr. Webby you need to activate your Twitter account you haven’t used it since 2012 Sent from my iPad From:Aram James To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Sajid Khan; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; darylsavage@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; Jonsen, Robert; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; Figueroa, Eric; Jeff Moore; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; Shikada, Ed; ParkRec Commission Subject:Why cops love to lie Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 1:03:04 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; darylsavage@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Council, City; Planning Commission; Joe Simitian; chuck jagoda; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jonsen, Robert; Reifschneider, James; Greer Stone Subject:Why we love our cops to lie and lie and lie some more Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:58:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/05/21/philip-stinson-police-reports-newday-keilar- vpx.cnn Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Eduardo Guilarte To:Aram James Cc:Human Relations Commission; darylsavage@gmail.com; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Shikada, Ed; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jay Boyarsky Subject:Re: Palo Alto police arrest man in 2002 rape of 94-year-old woman – The Mercury News Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:16:50 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from eduardoguilarte@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Aram Are you referring to the Jorge Hernandez case? I think that case is a classic example of a false confession. The kid said he didn't remember being there. They told him that the mind under alcohol can play tricks and that's why he didn't remember. They convinced him that he had been there and they had video and fingerprint evidence to prove it. The kid then asked, what did I do? Rape, they told him. The kid couldn't believe he had raped someone. On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:08 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: PAPD coerced false confession case that made 60 mins -still a case taught on how not to do police interrogations …maybe it is time to ask the PAPD how they handle interrogations in 2022. https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/08/15/palo-alto-police-arrest-man-in-2002-rape-of-94-year-old-woman/ Sent from my iPhone -- Eduardo Guilarte P.O. Box 50631 Palo Alto, CA 94303 408 287-9500 office 650 630-0355 cell Please feelFeel free to book time on my calendar From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Vara Ramakrishnan; alisa mallari tu; Anna Griffin; Figueroa, Eric; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert Subject:How the HRC aggressively went after a former PAPD chief in 2002-to say the relationship between the HRC and the police was not cozy is an understatement. How times have changed. 2002-2022 Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:26:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 2002 HRC aggressively went after the PAPD over the coerced false confession of the PAPD and police lying and deception generally. How times have changed. See the article below. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_11_20.questioning20.html Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Roberta Ahlquist; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Human Relations Commission; Pat Burt; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian; Jeff Moore; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:How the HRC aggressively went after a former PAPD chief in 2002-to say the relationship between the HRC and the police was no not cozy is an understatement. How times have changed. Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:19:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 2002 HRC aggressively went after the PAPD over the coerced false confession of the PAPD and police lying and deception generally. How times have changed. See the article below. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_11_20.questioning20.html Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; darylsavage@gmail.com; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jay Boyarsky Subject:Palo Alto police arrest man in 2002 rape of 94-year-old woman – The Mercury News Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:08:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ PAPD coerced false confession case that made 60 mins -still a case taught on how not to do police interrogations … maybe it is time to ask the PAPD how they handle interrogations in 2022. https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/08/15/palo-alto-police-arrest-man-in-2002-rape-of-94-year-old-woman/ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Pat Burt; Council, City; ladoris cordell; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; Steven D. Lee; chuck jagoda; darylsavage@gmail.com; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Planning Commission; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Reifschneider, James; Greer Stone Subject:City Council -HRC study session set for Jan 24, 2022 at 5pm Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 9:38:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor & Council members: Here is Judge Cordell’s Jan 2021 critique of the HRC’s last report on race ( see link to her piece below). Maybe her opinions of the HRC’s effectiveness on race action items beyond mere powerful conversation has changed in the last year, maybe it hasn’t. To make the HRC City Council study session more fruitful I suggest inviting Judge Cordell to speak on the subject during the study session on Jan 24, 2022 starting at 4pm. Of course Judge Cordell may have other plans for the evening but I think it is worth a try. If Judge Cordell is unavailable some of council’s questions to the HRC may come from her Jan 2021 critique of the HRC‘s previous report. I look forward to attending the study session. Best regards, Aram James https://padailypost.com/2021/01/18/cordell-says-city-commissions-report-on-race-lacks-immediate-steps-to-solve- racial-problems/amp/ Sent from my iPhone From:Carla Befera To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Notes on erroneous comments in tonight"s meeting Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 8:19:13 PM Attachments:Enrollment Graph Sept 2020.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The meeting is still underway, but I wanted to write in response to Commissioner Templeton’s early question/statement regarding the history of Castilleja’s impact on its neighbors. To clarify to Ms. Templeton, neighbors DID complain (often) about Castilleja’s impacts, including school and event parking/traffic, buses, evening and weekend events, and many other issues. Ms. French spoke in error when she answered that over-enrollment did not cause issues among neighbors and was only brought to light when the school self-reported. The ongoing concerns by neighbors over decades have been documented, and are outlined in minutes of neighborhood meetings archived on the school’s website. She also misspoke in noting that the issue came to light due to “a change in personnel” – Nanci Kauffman became Head of School in 2010, and as you will see by the attached, the school continued to increase its over-enrollment violation for the next three years, until it neighbors became aware and insisted the City address the issue. (The school is still in violation of its 415 enrollment cap.) For a history refresher: the school hosted a neighborhood meeting on July 18, 2013 at which it presented its hope to grow from its CUP-allowed 415 students. At that meeting, neighbors asked exactly what was the current enrollment? In response to that question, the over-enrollment first came to public light. Here are the minutes: https://www.castilleja.org/uploaded/Website_Content/Neighborhood_archives_thru_June_2018/20 13_Meetings/July_2013_Meeting/July_18_-_Meeting_Minutes.pdf At the bottom of page 1: “The meeting then opened up for general discussion. During that time the school reported that current enrollment for the upcoming school year is 445, due to higher than anticipated acceptance levels.” There is unanimous agreement among neighbors present that the over-enrollment was only revealed after specific questioning. It caused a fair bit of outrage, particularly among neighbors who had spent 18 months negotiating in good faith the previous CUP in 2000, and were now learning its cap had been completely disregarded. The corollary with increased impacts in traffic and parking - issues neighbors felt were not being adequately addressed by the school - were noted. The next meeting was held August 15, 2013 to revisit the issue – here are those minutes: https://www.castilleja.org/uploaded/Website_Content/Neighborhood_archives_thru_June_2018/20 13_Meetings/August_2013_Meeting/Meeting_Minutes.pdf On page 4 it notes: “With regard to getting enrollment down to 415, the school is currently pursuing a CUP amendment for 448 – the current enrollment. It would pose undue hardship to get to 415 by the start of the school year. Programmatically, 448 has allowed for better collaboration and an enhanced learning environment.” Neighbors present at that meeting recall Nanci Kaufman making the case that 448 was a better number pedagogically, as it provided for 64 students per level, enabling 8 groups of 8 students in each level. We neighbors all questioned why 4 or 6 students per group wasn’t just as effective, and felt her argument didn’t hold much water, but that was her staunch defense of that specific enrollment number. So we question why 450 is now the starter requirement. Frankly, it appears to be specifically a funding issue, in which modernization/construction costs will be offset by additional tuition, not a pedagogical requirement. NOTE: it was after these meetings that the school implemented most of its current TDM measures (all of which were required in the 2000 CUP: shuttles, parking monitors, using the field for special event parking, carpool facilitation, etc.) These measures are listed in meeting minutes as new recommendations which would be implemented to offset proposed new enrollment – not as measures that should have been undertaken 13 years earlier in compliance with the CUP. There is understandable frustration that the school has shown a history of not being in compliance, and that the City has no infrastructure to monitor or correct CUP violations. Neighbors calculated that over the years of non-compliance, the school has collected more than $14.25 million from additional illegal enrollments (274 over-enrolled students since 2002 @ $52,000/student). Its fine of $364,000 seemed a very small penalty, and did nothing to offset the impact issues faced by the neighbors. At the moment, the initiative seems to be to allow the school to start at 450 enrollment, a level higher than the height of their CUP violation - which begs the question why the PTC and City Council are rewarding non-compliance. Attached is a graph showing the enrollment increases since 2000. All the school minutes related to neighborhood meetings can be found on this portal: https://www.castilleja.org/community/neighborhood-portal Many thanks, Carla Befera Castilleja Enrollment History 19 Years of Enrollment Limit Violation From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Jeff Moore; Council, City; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Enberg, Nicholas; Jonsen, Robert; Reifschneider, James; Rebecca Eisenberg; Greer Stone; Perron, Zachary; Figueroa, Eric; Cecilia Taylor Subject:Pennsylvania Senate leader calls for impeachment of liberal Philly DA: "We have a real crisis Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:36:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberal-philadelphia-da-krasner-impeachment-corman-murders.amp Sent from my iPhone From:Jamie Beckett To:Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Stone, Greer; DuBois, Tom Cc:Peter Shuler; Terry Holzemer; Kim Griffin; Suzanne Steimle; Valerie Milligan; George Thomas; Anoja Herath; Julia Grinkrug; Young; Council, City Subject:Monday Public Hearing on RM-40 Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:27:07 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jmbeckett@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers Dubois, Kou and Stone, We are members of the public who raised the issue with the council of unfair treatment for RM-40 during the discussions over objective standards. So imagine our surprise when we learned purely by chance that on Monday there will be a public hearing on this matter. Although we typically review the council agenda, we had not yet done so. We received nothing in the mail, no email notice and no notice of any kind. As you may recall, we live in Palo Alto Central, a 140-unit condominium complex located in what feels like the epicenter of development in Palo Alto. We are already living with the clamor, disruption and traffic congestion caused by construction from the public safety building, and we face two additional projects -- 231 Grant and 123 Sherman. We view fairness for RM-40 as a vitally important matter that affects our well-being. The proposal by the Planning Department is a slap in the face to our concerns. Although the Planning Department's proposal claims to adjust height standards for structures abutting RM- 40, it does no such thing. The proposal changes none of the unfair policies and practices that affect us. People in RM-40 and PC zones remain the only Palo Alto residents who lack any protection from massive development abutting our homes. Developers can put a structure as high as 50 feet within 20 feet of our homes and we have no recourse. Unlike everyone else in Palo Alto we not entitled to light, air, sunshine, green space or privacy. We would like to remind the council that as you pursue the goals of the Race & Equity statement, you also consider economic inequality and remember that most people are not among the privileged few who can buy multi-million dollar single-family homes in Palo Alto. The Planning Department proposal is designed to please developers -- not city residents. We count on our council to protect the rights of city residents. We are grateful to you councilmembers Dubois, Greer and Kou, for your pastwillingness to explore our concerns about long-standing inequities that RM-40residents face. We hope we can count on you and the rest of the council to look outfor what's best for those of who live in the city and not just those who want to profitfrom it. Sincerely yours, Jamie Beckett Peter Jon Shuler Park Boulevard, Palo Alto From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: 2022 Korematsu Day Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 11:21:40 AM Attachments:Fred Korematsu Day 2022 Invite Final (1).png Fred Korematsu Day 2022 Invite Final.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Allan Seid DATE: 1/19/22 SOURCE: Asian Law Alliance Panel Discussion: “Building Resilience in the Fight for Racial Justice: Learning from the Past to Build a Better Future.” Panelists: Dr. Karen Korematsu, The Fred T. Korematsu Institute Hon. Johnny Gogo, Santa Clara County Superior Court Zahra Billoo, Executive Director of CAIR-SFBA Moderator: Adena Ishii, Santa Clara University, School of Law J o i n u s v i a Z o o m f o r t h i s e x c i t i n g e v e n t . A l m o s t 8 0 y e a r s a g o , P r e s i d e n t F r a n k l i n R o o s e v e l t s i g n e d E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 9 0 6 6 w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e t e n t i o n , f o r c e d r e m o v a l a n d i n c a r c e r a t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 m e n , w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n , b e c a u s e o f t h e i r J a p a n e s e a n c e s t r y . F r e d K o r e m a t s u , a y o u n g m a n f r o m N o r t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a , f o u g h t a g a i n s t t h a t i n j u s t i c e . A l t h o u g h t h e U .S . S u p r e m e C o u r t , i n a d e c i s i o n t h a t w a s l a t e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t o b e “g r a v e l y w r o n g ”, u p h e l d h i s c o n v i c t i o n i n 1 9 4 4 , h i s r e n e w e d l e g a l c h a l l e n g e i n t h e 1 9 8 0 s w a s a h i s t o r i c a l m i l e s t o n e i n t h e f i g h t f o r j u s t i c e f o r a l l A m e r i c a n s , r e g a r d l e s s o f r a c e o r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n . O n J a n u a r y 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 , j o i n u s a s w e h o n o r h i s r e s i l i e n c e . Sunday, January 30, 2022 Online Event Only Time: 11:30 a.m. PT Video Messages & Remarks By Prof. Renee Billingslea http://www.reneebillingslea.com/#/tenjapaneseconcentrationcamp/ 12:00 p.m. PT Live Panel Discussion 1:15 p.m. PT Rebroadcast of Video Messages 1.0 Hours MCLE Credit provided by the Asian-Pacific American Bar Association – Silicon Valley (APABA-SV) Register to Attend: https://bit.ly/3Kb3Npo From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Registration Confirmation | CCSRE: Planting the Seeds of Race and Ethnic Studies on the Farm Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:31:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stanford Historical Society <no-reply@zoom.us>Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:28 AMSubject: Registration Confirmation | CCSRE: Planting the Seeds of Race and Ethnic Studies on the FarmTo: <allanseid734@gmail.com> Hi ALLAN and MARY SEID, Thank you for registering for CCSRE: Planting the Seeds of Race and Ethnic Studies on the Farm. Description: *This program will no longer be presented in-person and will be presented entirely on Zoom. The establishment of the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity (CCSRE) at Stanford in 1996 ushered in what our presenter Professor Al Camarillo refers to as “Ethnic Studies 2.0.” As the founding director of CCSRE and one of the founding scholars of MexicanAmerican history and Chicano studies, Professor Camarillo will tell a series of “origin stories” about the formation of CCSRE and the history of ethnic studies at Stanford and beyond. These origin stories are particularly important for understanding why the university is makingplans to develop a new Institute for the Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Society and a Department of African and African American Studies. Thursday, January 20, 2022, 4:30-6:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Note: If you need a disability-related accommodation or have related questions, please contact the Stanford Historical Society by email: historicalsociety@stanford.edu. Requests need to be made by January 10th, 2022. Date Time: Jan 20, 2022 04:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join. https://stanford.zoom.us/w/93719178972? tk=gQ_tx53gEmLfZt3elmDKutBcWPPRZB5XS9nP9HNfduc.DQMAAAAV0hku3BZkcmV5SWN0RlNDaVJadmhQSWk4cE5RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&pwd=RW81eFF2L1MrRTUzOHcrTXdKTzNNQT09&uuid=WN_DbsVwaKZQWeo3c5jyltNsANote: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you. Password: 391431 Add to Calendar Add to Google Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16507249799,,93719178972# or +18333021536,,93719178972# (Toll Free) Or Telephone:Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 650 724 9799 or +1 833 302 1536 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 937 1917 8972 Password: 391431International numbers available: https://stanford.zoom.us/u/acyoxs98L0 Webinar Speakers Al Camarillo The Leon Sloss Jr. Memorial Professor and Professor of American History, Emeritus @Stanford University Al Camarillo’s storied career at Stanford began in 1975 when he was appointed in the Department of History. He is widely regarded as one of the founders of the field of Mexican American history and Chicano studies (he is the first Mexican American in the nation’s history to receive a PhD in U.S. history with a specialization in Chicano History). He has published seven books and dozens of articles on the history of Mexican Americans and other communities of color. He is the only faculty member in the history of Stanford to receive six of the highest awards for excellence in teaching and service to the university. Camarillo is the past president of the Organization of American Historian, the nation’s largest membership association for historians of the United States and past president of the American Historical Association-Pacific Coast Branch. His memoir, Going Back to Compton: A Native Son Searches for Racial Equality, will be published by Stanford University Press in 2022-2023. You can cancel your registration at any time. From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City Subject:District based voting Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 8:04:50 AM Attachments:6404%20-%20Intention%20to%20transition%20to%20by- district%20election%20system_201711021915301691.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hello Council FYI I suggest the Council look into adopting this voting practice as Menlo Park has done. Thank you for your attention Ken Horowitz 525 Homer Ave #1 Palo Alto 94301 https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/15878/20171004-Reso-6404-CVRA-Resolution- of-Intent?bidId= Sent from my iPad 1 RESOLUTION NO. 6404 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK DECLARING ITS INTENT TO TRANSITION FROM AT-LARGE TO BY-DISTRICT COU N C IL M E M B E R ELECTIONS UNDER ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10010 WHEREAS, m embers of the City Council of the City of Menlo Park ("City") are currently elected in "at-large" elections, in which each City Councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 in certain circumstances, authorizes the legislative body of a city of any population to adopt an ordinance to change its method of election from an "at-large" system to a "district-based" system in which each councilmember is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and WHEREAS, the City received a certified letter on August 21, 2017, from Kevin Shenkman of the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes asserting that the City's at-large councilmember electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA") and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily change to a district-based election system for electing councilmembers; and WHEREAS, a violation of the CVRA is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections (Elections Code Section 14028(a)). "Racially polarized voting" means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code Section 14026(e)); and WHEREAS, although the letter was not accompanied by any evidence to support the claim of a CVRA violation, the City Council has directed staff to initiate the process to establish by-district elections to avoid costs associated with defending a lawsuit based on the CVRA, even if that lawsuit settles; and WHEREAS, the California Legislature in amendments to Elections Code Section 10010, has provided a method whereby a jurisdiction can expeditiously change to a by-district election system and avoid the high cost of litigation under the CVRA; and WHEREAS, the City denies its election system violates the CVRA or any other provision of law and asserts the City’s election system is legal in all respects and further denies any wrongdoing whatsoever in connection with the manner in which it has conducted its City Council elections; and 2 WHEREAS, despite the foregoing, the City Council has concluded it is in the public interest to begin the process of transitioning from at-large to district-based elections due to the uncertainty of litigation to defend against a CVRA lawsuit, the potentially extraordinary cost of such a lawsuit, even if the City were to prevail; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code subdivision 10010(e), if the City adopts a resolution outlining its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections, specific steps it will undertake to facilitate this transition, and an estimated time frame for doing so, then a prospective plaintiff may not bring a CVRA lawsuit within 90 days after that resolution’s passage; and WHEREAS, prior to the City Council's consideration of an ordinance to establish district boundaries for a district-based electoral system, California Elections Code Section 10010 requires all of the following: 1. Prior to drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the City shall hold at least two (2) public hearings over a period of no more than thirty (30) days, at which the public will be invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts; 2. After all draft maps are drawn, City shall publish and make available for release at least one draft map and, if members of the City Council will be elected in their districts at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections shall also be published. The City Council shall also hold at least two (2) additional hearings over a period of no more than forty-five (45) days, at which the public shall be invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if applicable. The first version of a draft map shall be published at least seven (7) days before consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a hearing, it shall be published and made available to the public for at least seven (7) days before being adopted; and WHEREAS, the City is in the process of retaining an experienced demographer to assist the City to develop a proposal for a district-based electoral system; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a district-based elections system will not affect the terms of any sitting councilmember, each of whom will serve out his or her current term. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Menlo Park, acting by and through its City Council, having considered and been fully advised in the matter and good cause appearing therefore does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby resolves to consider adoption of an ordinance to transition to a district-based election system as authorized by Government Code Section 34886 for use in the City's General Municipal Election for City Councilmembers beginning in November 2018. 3 SECTION 2. The City Council directs staff to work with the City’s demographer, and other appropriate consultants as needed, to provide a detailed analysis of the City’s current demographics and any other information or data necessary to prepare a draft map that divides the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the California Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the tentative timeline as set forth in Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this resolution, for conducting a public process to solicit public input and testimony on proposed district-based electoral maps before adopting any such map. SECTION 4. The timeline contained in Exhibit A may be adjusted by the City Manager as deemed necessary. SECTION 5. The City Council directs staff to post information regarding the proposed transition to a district based election system, including maps, notices, agendas and other information and to establish a means of communication to answer questions from the public. I, Jelena Harada, Deputy City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the fourth day of October, 2017, by the following votes: AYES: Carlton, Cline, Keith, Mueller, Ohtaki NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this fourth day of October, 2017. Jelena Harada Deputy City Clerk 4 EXHIBIT A TENTATIVE TIMELINE: CONSIDERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF "DISTRICT-BASED” ELECTION METHOD DATE EVENT COMMENT August 21, 2017 City received demand letter City has 45 days to adopt Resolution of Intent to change to district elections. 45 days runs on October 5, 2017. October 4, 2017 City Council adopts Resolution declaring its intention to transition from at- large to district-based elections. CVRA Action cannot be commenced for 90 days. 90 days from this date is January 2, 2017. October 5 – October 30, 2017 Public Outreach regarding process No maps yet drawn. October 30, 2017 1st Public Hearing City Council hearing regarding composition of districts; no maps yet November 29, 2017 2nd Public Hearing City Council hearing regarding composition of districts, no maps - TBD Post draft maps and potential sequence of elections Draft maps and proposed sequence must be posted publicly at least 7 days before hearing TBD 3rd Public Hearing City Council hearing regarding Draft Maps TBD Post any new or Amended Maps and potential sequence of elections. Draft maps and proposed sequence must be posted publicly at least 7 days before hearing TBD 4th Public Hearing: Select Map; City Council introduces ordinance establishingdistrict elections, including District Boundaries and Election Sequence If selected map is amended, ordinance cannot be introduced until 7 days after amended map is published TBD 5th Public Hearing: 2nd reading of ordinance Ordinance adopted From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mayor; merazroofinginc@att.net; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; Sally Thiessen; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte; russ@topperjewelers.com Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:25:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:57 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:49 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 9:46 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 4:04 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:57 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:52 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:50 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:43 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:39 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:23 AM Subject: Dr. John Campbell Wed. 1/12 and Thurs. 1/13. Much Calif. data on Wed. 1/12 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Tuesday, January 18, 2022 late To all- Here is Dr. John Campbell for January 12 and 13: Leveling off in hospitalizations of people infected FOR Omicron, particularly in California. Reason: Omicron is less severe that Delta and having natural immunity from exposure to earlier viruses, including Corona cold viruses e.g., within the past 6 to18 mos, protect against Sars Corona Virus 2 (!). "So why didn't they use cold viruses to produce vaccines earlier for Sars Corona virus 2?" he asks. Title here is "International Data Agree". (referring to results of studies in South Africa and in California, e.g.). Dutch study: You are much better off getting infected with Omicron than with Delta regardless of: Your age, your co-morbidities, your vaccination status. Big long study proves all of that. And, we now know that being infected with Delta and surviving, does not offer protection against Omicron. Surviving Omicron does provide protection against Delta, if you ever run into it again, and there is still some Delta around. Our vaccines use the spike protein of the virus as the antigen to provoke the immune system to produce antibodies and some T cells. It would have been better to use the RNA from the virus as the antigen. You get the production of better T cells that way. And, it is the T cells that give long-lived immunity. Antibodies fade over time, as we have seen with "waning immunity" with our current vaccines. He ponders why they went with the spike protein in making our vaccines. You can see the wheels turning. They didn't do it to make more money surely. International data agrees - YouTube Thursday, January 13, 2022: His title here is "US Hospital concerns". Hospitalizations have leveled off in the UK, but in the US they are still increasing. He looks at some reasons for that. The US has an older population than, say, the Netherlands. We have a LOT of co-morbidities: chronic obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic hypertension, renal failure, chronic lung disease. More about that below. It is an important insight. About 62% of American adults have had the initial two shots of vaccine and 35% have had a booster. It should be 90% with the first two shots. Yet, "there are signs that Omicron is about to crest in the SF Bay Area" of California. The evidence is from studies of wastewater. US hospital concerns - YouTube The number of people in hospitals in the US is increadibly high. There is a jump in under 4 year olds in hospitals. We can assume most of those are Delta, Dr. Campbell says. Crux of the vid: "Are people being admitted to hospitals with Covid or for Covid?" THAT is a false dichotomy, it turns out. Factors causing high hospitalization rates in the US: Low vaccination rates in some areas, Co-morbidities Residual circulation of Delta Post Delta infection Wallensky: "I suspect that the deaths we're seeing now are still from Delta". Here's the big reveal: From Vineet Arora at the University of Chicago: "If you're on the margin of coming into the hospital, Covid could tip you over". Dr. Campbell: So it's three categories: 1) For Covid. 2) With Covid that's exacerbated by a chronic condition. This is probably the majority of hospitaliztions now in the US. And: 3) Truly incidentals. Admitted for a broken leg, car wreck, and test positive for Covid. These are the minority of admissions probably. As a result of the massive number of people with co-morbidities in the US, Dr. Campbell asks if we need new community health policies in the US. He searched the bread aisle in a US super market and every brand of bread had sugar as an ingredient. "Who would put sugar in bread?" he asks. Cases, admissions, ICUs all down in the UK. He asks "Has Omicron peaked in the UK, this early?" Possibly. Why? Widesprad natural immunity from Omicron combined with immunity from previous waves plus immunity from vaccinations. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Steven D. Lee To:Council, City Cc:Christina Schmidt Ptac; Don Austin; Mary Gloner; PTA Council EVP; PTAC Health and Wellness; Shikada, Ed; board@pausd.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Subject:2022 City Council Priorities — PTAC Recommendation: Mental Health Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:34:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, On behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC), we respectfully submit the attached letter in response to the City Council’s request for public input related to 2022 City Council priorities. We thank you in advance, and we hope you will consider, per our letter, making Mental Health in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a 2022 City Council-level priority. Yours in partnership, Steven Lee Vice President of Advocacy Palo Alto Council of PTAs PTAC Letter 2022 City Council… -- Regards, Steven Lee From:Rob Levitsky To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:castilleja proposal Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 5:45:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ PTC members: Your charter allows you to make recommendations on land use, zoning codes, Use Permits, Variances. Early on, Castilleja figured they could break any zoning ordinance, and their first design asked for 5 variances - breaking rules for lot merging, FAR limits, removing Protected Oaks and Redwoods, encroachment in setbacks from Embarcadero, Emerson, and Bryant. And city staff, including Staff Reports, generally supported the proposal. Only neighborhood actions have slowly pared back some of the questionable designs, such as the proposed bulldozing of 1235 and 1263 Emerson, the proposed removal of a dozen protected oaks and redwoods. There are 3 major areas left to be worked on - Enrollment, Parking, and FAR (floor area ratio), as far as the neighbors are concerned. As neighbors have had to deal with overenrollment for the last 20 years, Castilleja should be granted at most a limited increase to 450 students, with some verifiable process for any increase above that. Parking Garage (and its toll on neighborhood) not needed, as the agreement not to park on the Castilleja side of the street has worked, even at the highest enrollment-cheating level of 448 students. Parking needs can be decreased by not allowing juniors and/or seniors to drive to school. FAR - this is a guardrail to limit monstrous big box structures. Current law would limit Castilleja to 31% lot coverage, and they are trying to jam it up to 47%. 47% is way too high. Do something about it! Other design problems - Pool should not be set 15 feet below grade. This causes groundwater pumping, just like with the Gym in 2005, as the bottom of the pool digging would be 25-30 feet below grade, in the water table. Digging deep into the groundwater and placing the pool 15 feet under grade is insane. Proposed encroachment into Melville Utility Easement, to build the parking garage is not allowed without a City Manager Approval, and i havent seen any such approval. And the design shows a tunnel for the girls 2.5 feet under the Melville Sewer line that runs across the Utility Easement, that connects the parking garage to the rest of the school. What could go wrong??? If thats not enough to trigger yet another re-design, lets examine the fact that 1/3 of the classrooms are UNDERGROUND, with no windows, light wells, or possibility of fresh air. Has the Virus not taught the Architects anything about fresh air and ventilation? Or is windowless basement classrooms the new Pedagogical standard? Some ARB members didnt think so. PTC members - please protect our neighborhood from this overdone expansion Rob Levitsky 1200 Emerson Sent from my iPhone From:Meimei Pan To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Being a Responsible Neighbor Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:27:46 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from meimeipan@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commission, It is disturbing as a neighbor and former Castilleja parents and active volunteers (for cumulative 9 years, two daughters) to see this badly planned project that directly affects our local lives move forward. Our daughters loved the small school feel with intimate interactions with other students and teachers, but even back in the late 1990's and early 2000's, traffic and safety to student pedestrians was already an issue. Mentoring has always been an argument for keeping all class levels together, but in our time at least, it was more lip service than a reality. Neither of our girls experienced mentoring from an older classmate. It could be encouraged at the current enrollment level on one campus, but a split campus seems like a more reasonable alternative as is done by other schools. We still cannot understand the proposed 30% increase to 540 students on a 6 acre campus that barely supports the current population. The traffic patterns on Bryant, Emerson and Embarcadero cannot possibly support built-up traffic from an underground garage with even more parking and cars. We have witnessed so many accidents at these intersections, and the wait time for turning from Emerson with fast oncoming traffic from Town & Country, as well as back ups on Embarcadero because of Town & Country, make it quite untenable for Embarcadero to continue as a major artery in the city. We really are appalled that the original agreement to enrollment limits have been so cavalierly and illegally ignored, and we urge you to preserve the scale of our neighborhood (especially as most Casti students are from outside Palo Alto), as well as the preservation of trees. Girls' education is important to support but its quality depends not on size and increased budget, but on scale, intimacy, smaller teacher/student ratios, and a supportive environment which we think will be compromised with this expansion. Please do not support the current plan even with revisions. There is plenty of above ground parking to support the campus and absolutely no need for an underground garage. The city needs to put its foot down, as it has not done in the past. And look where it has gotten us. If we give way to the school, our peaceful neighborhood will be clogged with congestion during construction and in the future. We understand the push for expansion and growth in Palo Alto, especially in the housing area, and this is not a case of NIMBY, but these were the agreements made by the school with the city for a reason, given its location inside a residential neighborhood. thank you, Raehua Pan and Lynn Jacobson 334 Whitman Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; beachrides; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; merazroofinginc@att.net; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret- sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Unconfirmed reports (by the Germans) of the invasion of Europe. Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:22:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 3:53 PM Subject: Fwd: Unconfirmed reports (by the Germans) of the invasion of Europe. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>m Date: Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 4:03 AM Subject: Unconfirmed reports (by the Germans) of the invasion of Europe. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Tuesday, January 18, 2022 To all- Don't worry. It's 1944, June 6. This runs for eight hours. CBS radio reports. Since most of us were not there, or were too young, to hear this, it is interesting. They keep saying the Germans might be lying. No comment from the allied high command in London or from the War Dept. in Washington, D.C. But at 1 AM Eastern War Time, Berlin radio was saying the invasion was under way. That would be 6 AM in London and 7AM in Berlin. "The Nazis might use this to get the resistance groups in Western Europe to reveal themselves", the US and British governments were saying. The Germans were saying that the long-awaited invasion was underway. "Now CBS brings music of Lennie Kahn and his orchestra from Hollywood", they said. Music. Then the announcement from the allied high command: "Allied Naval forces, supported by strong air forces, began landing allied armies this morning on the northern coast of France.." Heady stuff. "The hour of your liberation is approaching", Eisenhower broadcast to the people of Europe. WW2 Radio News: D-Day (1944, Part 2) - YouTube L. Wiliam Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Kimberley Wong To:Planning Commission Cc:French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Castilleja"s expansion proposal: PTC Meeting 1/19/2022 Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:18:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, I have written a number of letters to you over the years, but stay steadfast in my beliefs that Castilleja DOES NOT NEED AN UNDERGROUND GARAGE. Palo Altans will be subjected to significant negative impacts to their commute, community and quality of life during construction and in the future with the increase enrollment. The focus should be on how to solve the Castilleja's Significant and Unavoidable Impact traffic problem that they are bringing into the neighborhood with long term sustainable environment friendly solutions such as distributed campuses, replacing student and parent driving with satellite parking and shuttling. If the traffic problem is truly fixed, there should be no need for an underground garage. A Single Family Neighborhood is a residential zone. Does it make sense for a business like Castilleja which requires a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) to operate in a residential neighborhood to have more rights than the surrounding residents who are prohibited from building an underground garage? Castilleja's newly hired lawyer calls for Castilleja to have the same property right as others, then it is obvious that Castilleja should NOT be allowed to have an underground garage. What gives them the right to divert traffic for years to building a garage that will wreak havoc to the environment, disturb groundwater tables, destroy trees, and interfere with the Bicycle Safety Boulevard which was created to offer safe passage to bicyclists old and young alike? What gives them the right to permanently alter the traffic flow along the Embarcadero Corridor and interfere with the Bike Safety Boulevard indefinitely. We look to you of the Planning and Transportation to vote for what is right for Palo Alto. Please assess the traffic and congestion that already exists along this major artery of Palo Alto and do NOT allow a self serving business with 75% of its student body living outside of Palo Alto to upend the quality of life of our community. If Castilleja was sincerely working with the neighbors 5 years ago to present a plan that truly has the neighbors well-being in mind, then they could have been like Bowman School which started their application at the same time and has completed building their new campus. It’s the tale of two schools, one who plays by the rules and the other who tries to strong arm others to yield to their unreasonable requests. If Castilleja just wants to "modernize" their current campus, then they could have built a separate new campus to distribute many more girls that are outside of Palo Alto by now. But instead, Castilleja chose to stubbornly and myopically insist on having an underground garage as the guiding light to achieve their expansion ambition. The reason the community has been firmly against their proposal is because even after multiple redesigns, Castilleja has still yet to provide a single viable NO garage option that will be good for the environment and good for the neighborhood. Please do not cave into Castilleja's requests to build a garage. This does not provide any benefit Palo Alto or its residents for now and in the future. An underground garage is NOT sustainable and will just invite more traffic that will be hazardous to everyone's health! Thank you for your consideration. Kimberley Wong From:Carla Befera To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:PTC agenda item: Castilleja School - 1.19.22 Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:17:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Committee: My family has lived directly across the street from Castilleja since 1968. We have seen many recent comments to the PTC and City Council from residents self-identifying as “neighbors,” who do not in fact reside near the school and are less likely to be aware of its daily impacts, and from other average “citizens” who neglect to mention they are school parents, alums, and donors. We appreciate that everyone is entitled to an opinion of how/whether the school should improve and grow, and that the school is entitled to encourage its supporters to speak up in favor of its hoped-for expansion. But we hope the Commissioners recognize that those who live in its immediate vicinity have first-hand experience of the schools many impacts on its residential neighborhood, as well as how the school’s decisions will continue to affect this area, as well as the greater City. We certainly value the education the school provides to young women, and understand its desire to modernize its buildings. But in terms of student population, we feel it has already outgrown its current site, and do not understand why the city should approve an expanded CUP that will allow the school to even further expand operations. We ask the PTC and City Council to separate the issues of building modifications from enrollment expansion. Among the items we specifically hope you will consider: 1. The site is overbuilt, a fact recently endorsed by an official third party surveyor (see Dudek report, packet page 19 – actual page 11). The school has been adding buildings over the last few decades, in non-compliance with code that existed at the time. It is of interest that there is no mention in the reports of the allowed FAR (.3028) in a residential area, only that the school is proposing to replace existing GFA of 138,345sf (.5147 FAR) with a smaller footprint of 128,687sf (.4788 FAR). The school has been allowed to build over the years without the hindrance of following code, as all of its neighbors would be required to do, and is now requesting 47,300 above-grade square footage in excess of what's allowed by code. It is my understanding that developers must comply with current code – why would the PTC allow such an enormous variance, creating a precedence for future projects? 2. The Kol Emeth project does NOT provide a similar case. That underground garage did not require a variance for additional square footage - it qualified as “a basement” (not counted against FAR) because it was located underneath the building, unlike Castilleja’s. That project only required a variance for small encroachment issues, and an exemption in FAR for its heightened lobby. It should not be used, as the attorneys for Castilleja assert, to set a precedence relevant to Castilleja’s plans. 3. Parking issues: the Fehr & Peers report makes frequent reference to using local on-street parking to meet future demand, as in “The school frontage parking has an average occupancy of ~80 percent during the middle of the day. Therefore, it should be possible for persons to easily find parking in the non-frontage on-street parking segments.” Utilization of on-street residential parking in order to meet future increased demand is the backbone of this report. In what other scenario would a private concern be allowed to expand, with the understanding that its expanded parking needs would be met by the available parking in a residential neighborhood? 7. Traffic: all ingress and egress to this school (with 75% of users coming from outside Palo Alto) is via one of the city’s already clogged arteries - which will become deeply exacerbated should Churchill be closed temporarily or permanently. Also all the traffic reports focus only on cars driving into the school’s drop off areas, with no consideration of all the self-driving students who park throughout the area and are NOT monitored by the school. Neighbors are acutely aware of this activity. We advocate mandated shuttling and the elimination of self- driving juniors/seniors – already a rule at many other local private schools located in residential areas. Page 22 notes incentives examples such as “restricting sophomores and juniors from driving to campus … and allowing on-site parking for carpools with three or more passengers.” We would like to see this a requirement, not a suggestion. 5. TDM: There is mention of future programs that will increase the level of carpooling by faculty/staff and the use of shuttles. What other private company would be allowed to expand its operations without specific off-site parking assurances, but only a hopeful promise to implement carpools? We ask the PTC to require specifics, such as off-site parking and shuttles, no self-driving students, etc. rather than trust the school to implement, and the City to monitor, a TDM that experience has shown is not enforced. 6. Construction: Please require the school to move to a temporary site during construction, to reduce the construction period and less impacts on traffic, contamination, noise, and construction parking issues. Many thanks for your consideration of these points, and for your service. Carla Befera 1404 Bryant Street Palo Alto From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: The nation’s immigration court system is a mess. Rep. Lofgren is teeing up an effort to overhaul it Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:05:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 7:31 PM Subject: The nation’s immigration court system is a mess. Rep. Lofgren is teeing up an effort to overhaul it To: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com>, MARCINE SEID <marcine@seidlawgroup.com> https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/The-nation-s-immigration-court- system-is-a-16773646.php? utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_cam paign=sfc_politicalpunch&sid=5fefc058b042aa734736d79c The nation’s immigration court system is a mess. Rep. Lofgren is teeing up an effort to overhaul it Tal Kopan Jan. 13, 2022 Updated: Jan. 13, 2022 2:13 p.m. Comments Tal Kopan Jan. 13, 2022 Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, is expected to convene a congressional hearing on the immigration court system next week. J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press 2020 The hearing may also provide the first critical look by Congress at how the courts, which are under the control of the Department of Justice, have been running under the Biden administration. Though President Biden came into office pledging to turn the page from his predecessor’s hard-line immigration stance, advocates say progress has been slow, especially at the Department of Justice. It will also come a year after The Chronicle reported that immigration court policies and structure have allowed sexually inappropriate behavior and misconduct among judges and staff to flourish, which prompted the Justice Department to kick off a study of how to overhaul its procedures. The hundreds of judges at the roughly 70 immigration courts nationwide decide the fate of immigrants seeking to stay in the U.S., many of whom fear for their lives if they are deported. But the system has long faced criticism for its enormous backlog of more than 1.5 million cases, inconsistency across judges and courts, antiquated bureaucracy and labyrinthine structure that’s difficult for immigrants without lawyers to navigate. The immigration courts are unique as a court system. It is entirely controlled by the attorney general, a political appointee, who manages the nation’s prosecutors and is ultimately the boss of immigration judges, and who has authority over their rulings equivalent to the Supreme Court. Lofgren, a San Jose Democrat, chairs the immigration subcommittee of the House judiciary panel and is a longtime leader on immigration policy in Washington. She has been working on legislation that would make the nation’s immigration courts an independent system. In theory that change, which has been called for by the major pro- immigrant and immigration law organizations, would insulate the courts from the political whims of different administrations, and allow them to function more like a justice system. Committee staff said Lofgren was still working on the bill and offered no timeline for its introduction, but an informational hearing such as the one scheduled for next week typically serves as a precursor to the unveiling of legislation. Drafts of Lofgren’s bill that have circulated among immigration policy experts, obtained by The Chronicle, lay out a system similar to the current setup but that would be self-managed, much like other independent court systems, such as bankruptcy court. The president would nominate the system’s appellate judges for 15-year terms, pending confirmation by the Senate. The appellate body would then appoint the lower-level judges. The bill would have a phase-in plan to space out the appointments over several years, so one administration would not get to hand-select the entire staff when the courts become independent. A Judiciary Committee aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the hearing yet, said the subcommittee hearing will consist of testimony from outside experts about how the courts are functioning and what an independent system should look like. If Lofgren were to introduce her bill, as expected, after the hearing, it would need to have a committee vote and undergo an amendment process before it could be voted on by the full House. To become law, 10 Republicans would have to join all Democrats in the Senate to vote to advance it. Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @talkopan From:susan chamberlain To:Pat Burt; Council, City Subject:City Council Priorities Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:57:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and City Council Members, 350 SV PA Climate Team is pleased to see the initiation of the Ad Hoc Committee on the S/CAP and hope that meaningful programs will emerge as the climate crisis is getting more dire every year. While the Council has made climate change, protection and adaptation a priority for the last 2 years, we haven’t moved the needle anywhere near enough given the severity of the crisis. 350 SV Palo Alto Team encourages the Council to continue to make Climate Change a TOP priority for 2022. While the S/CAP delineates important initiatives in a broad set of important areas, we feel the Council and Staff need to prioritize and focus on a few things that will dramatically reduce our GHGs — namely building electrification and transportation. We need to move the needle in these two biggest pieces of our emissions inventory immediately to get us anywhere near to our 80x30 goal. We also need to have annual goals and benchmarks so we can track our progress. We’re all experiencing the effects of climate change now — even sooner than most scientists predicted. Smoke, fire, drought, sea level rise and heat waves are becoming the norm, and the longer we wait to fund and put programs in place, the harder (and more expensive) it will be as 2030 is less than 8 years away. The Governor’s proposed budget for the coming fiscal year reflects his deep understanding of the crisis we’re facing, and we implore you to act with the same courage and tenacity to promote a healthy and safe world for our children and grandchildren. Please “Look Up” and lead us into a habitable future. Respectfully, Susan Chamberlain for 350 SV PA City Climate Team From:Aram James To:Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Planning Commission; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Raj; Binder, Andrew; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Vara Ramakrishnan; Joe Simitian; Jeff Moore; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Rebecca Eisenberg; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Coerced Confessions still likely ( from the archives of Aram James) Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:45:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ >>> >> Coerced Confessions still likely (by Aram James Jan 18, 2005, The Daily News) >> The most troubling issue to be raised by your recent editorial (City settles suit but doesn’t fix problem, Dec, 20, 04, on the settlement in the Jorge Hernandez case is that neither Lynne Johnson or Detective Natasha Powers see anything wrong with the way in which the interrogation process that led to a coerced false confession was carried out. Such statements send a clear message to the rank and file PAPD officer –act in an overzealous fashion and we will support your actions regardless. >> >> Chief Lynne Johnson was quoted as saying" “We didn’t issue an apology because we didn’t do anything wrong,” (Palo Alto Daily News Dec 21, 04), and Detective Natasha Powers who actually conducted the interrogation leading to the coerced false confession by Mr. Hernandez, said of the settlement “It certainly isn’t going to change how I do my job,” (San Jose Mercury News Dec 18, 04). >> Chief Johnson and Detective Powers’ mind set, one of defiance and unwillingness to acknowledge the overzealous and misleading interrogation process used in the Hernandez case, carries with it the strong likelihood of future wrongful convictions directly related to the use of unreliable confession evidence extracted by members of the PAPD. >> Contrary to public perception, wrongful convictions resulting from false confessions are more common than normally acknowledged. . Of sixty- two individuals in the United States who had been wrongfully convicted and ultimately exonerated by DNA testing 15 had falsely confessed to the crime, (Actual Innocence, Scheck et al. 2000). >> But for the fortuitous circumstance that the real perpetrator of this horrendous crime, rape and beating of a 94 year old woman, left DNA at the crime scene, Mr. Hernandez, given the strong impact confessions have on juries, would likely have been wrongly convicted of these charges and would currently be spending the balance of his life in prison. >> Given the cavalier comments by Chief Johnson and Detective Powers regarding their belief that they did nothing wrong, it seems unlikely that training and reforms geared at changing the interrogation process that resulted in the false confession in the Hernandez case will occur in the PAPD any time soon if the decision for change is left to Chief Johnson. >> Future money judgments against the city should be incentive enough for immediate reform in the interrogation process. But more importantly, the likelihood of wrongful convictions of the innocent, if the current interrogation practice is allowed to stand, should trigger sufficient citizen outrage to demand that change take place immediately. >> The research in the field of wrongful confessions strongly suggests that once there is a confession attributed to a suspect everyone in the criminal justice system, the defense attorney, district attorney and judge etc, assumes the guilt of suspect and close scrutiny of the case, including testing and or investigating of the reliability of the confession ceases. Where the courts, public defenders and DA’s are burdened with heavy caseloads the situation is only exacerbated. >> Once the confession is recorded the focus of all the players in the system most often becomes pressuring the defendant to plead guilty. In the case of a false confession the defendant frequently becomes the victim of both a coerced/false confession and a coerced plea of guilty. >> >> The numbers of individuals who are the victims of both false confessions and subsequent pleas to charges they are not guilty of are much larger than commonly understood. Without immediate reform to the police practices that lead to false confessions the cycle of injustice will remain unabated except for the rare case like Jorge Hernandez where irrefutable evidence of its falsehood exists. >> Simply agreeing to tape the entire interrogation (which the PAPD has apparently now agreed to do) is an insufficient safeguard against coerced false confessions. Without an end to interrogation tactics based on lies and deceit there is no guarantee that a false confession will be uncovered. It is not enough to tape the entire interrogation; the use of lies, trickery and deceit as routine police practice in extracting confessions must be outlawed. From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Planning Commission; Jay Boyarsky; Joe Simitian; Tannock, Julie; Jonsen, Robert; Sajid Khan; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; Figueroa, Eric; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Rebecca Eisenberg; Reifschneider, James; Raj Jayadev; Winter Dellenbach; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; darylsavage@gmail.com; Gennady Sheyner; Brian Welch; Bill Johnson Subject:Re: Coerced Confessions still likely ( from the archives of Aram James) Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:33:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/00-archive/2010/doc100809.pdf Re: HRC Just place Daryl Savage in the search bar…..in this document and the comments will horrify you….. Mark Petersen-Perez Editor in chief Palo Alto Free Press Reporting from Nicaragua Sent from my iPad On Jan 18, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Coerced Confessions still likely (by Aram James Jan 18, 2005, The Daily News) The most troubling issue to be raised by your recent editorial (City settles suit but doesn’t fix problem, Dec, 20, 04, on the settlement in the Jorge Hernandez case is that neither Lynne Johnson or Detective Natasha Powers see anything wrong with the way in which the interrogation process that led to a coerced false confession was carried out. Such statements send a clear message to the rank and file PAPD officer –act in an overzealous fashion and we will support your actions regardless. Chief Lynne Johnson was quoted as saying" “We didn’t issue an apology because we didn’t do anything wrong,” (Palo Alto Daily News Dec 21, 04), and Detective Natasha Powers who actually conducted the interrogation leading to the coerced false confession by Mr. Hernandez, said of the settlement “It certainly isn’t going to change how I do my job,” (San Jose Mercury News Dec 18, 04). Chief Johnson and Detective Powers’ mind set, one of defiance and unwillingness to acknowledge the overzealous and misleading interrogation process used in the Hernandez case, carries with it the strong likelihood of future wrongful convictions directly related to the use of unreliable confession evidence extracted by members of the PAPD. Contrary to public perception, wrongful convictions resulting from false confessions are more common than normally acknowledged. . Of sixty- two individuals in the United States who had been wrongfully convicted and ultimately exonerated by DNA testing 15 had falsely confessed to the crime, (Actual Innocence, Scheck et al. 2000). But for the fortuitous circumstance that the real perpetrator of this horrendous crime, rape and beating of a 94 year old woman, left DNA at the crime scene, Mr. Hernandez, given the strong impact confessions have on juries, would likely have been wrongly convicted of these charges and would currently be spending the balance of his life in prison. Given the cavalier comments by Chief Johnson and Detective Powers regarding their belief that they did nothing wrong, it seems unlikely that training and reforms geared at changing the interrogation process that resulted in the false confession in the Hernandez case will occur in the PAPD any time soon if the decision for change is left to Chief Johnson. Future money judgments against the city should be incentive enough for immediate reform in the interrogation process. But more importantly, the likelihood of wrongful convictions of the innocent, if the current interrogation practice is allowed to stand, should trigger sufficient citizen outrage to demand that change take place immediately. The research in the field of wrongful confessions strongly suggests that once there is a confession attributed to a suspect everyone in the criminal justice system, the defense attorney, district attorney and judge etc, assumes the guilt of suspect and close scrutiny of the case, including testing and or investigating of the reliability of the confession ceases. Where the courts, public defenders and DA’s are burdened with heavy caseloads the situation is only exacerbated. Once the confession is recorded the focus of all the players in the system most often becomes pressuring the defendant to plead guilty. In the case of a false confession the defendant frequently becomes the victim of both a coerced/false confession and a coerced plea of guilty. The numbers of individuals who are the victims of both false confessions and subsequent pleas to charges they are not guilty of are much larger than commonly understood. Without immediate reform to the police practices that lead to false confessions the cycle of injustice will remain unabated except for the rare case like Jorge Hernandez where irrefutable evidence of its falsehood exists. Simply agreeing to tape the entire interrogation (which the PAPD has apparently now agreed to do) is an insufficient safeguard against coerced false confessions. Without an end to interrogation tactics based on lies and deceit there is no guarantee that a false confession will be uncovered. It is not enough to tape the entire interrogation; the use of lies, trickery and deceit as routine police practice in extracting confessions must be outlawed. From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Planning Commission; Jay Boyarsky; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Joe Simitian; Tannock, Julie; Jonsen, Robert; Sajid Khan; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; Figueroa, Eric; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Rebecca Eisenberg; Reifschneider, James; Raj Jayadev; Winter Dellenbach; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore Subject:Coerced Confessions still likely ( from the archives of Aram James) Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:22:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Coerced Confessions still likely (by Aram James Jan 18, 2005, The Daily News) The most troubling issue to be raised by your recent editorial (City settles suit but doesn’t fix problem, Dec, 20, 04, on the settlement in the Jorge Hernandez case is that neither Lynne Johnson or Detective Natasha Powers see anything wrong with the way in which the interrogation process that led to a coerced false confession was carried out. Such statements send a clear message to the rank and file PAPD officer –act in an overzealous fashion and we will support your actions regardless. Chief Lynne Johnson was quoted as saying" “We didn’t issue an apology because we didn’t do anything wrong,” (Palo Alto Daily News Dec 21, 04), and Detective Natasha Powers who actually conducted the interrogation leading to the coerced false confession by Mr. Hernandez, said of the settlement “It certainly isn’t going to change how I do my job,” (San Jose Mercury News Dec 18, 04). Chief Johnson and Detective Powers’ mind set, one of defiance and unwillingness to acknowledge the overzealous and misleading interrogation process used in the Hernandez case, carries with it the strong likelihood of future wrongful convictions directly related to the use of unreliable confession evidence extracted by members of the PAPD. Contrary to public perception, wrongful convictions resulting from false confessions are more common than normally acknowledged. . Of sixty- two individuals in the United States who had been wrongfully convicted and ultimately exonerated by DNA testing 15 had falsely confessed to the crime, (Actual Innocence, Scheck et al. 2000). But for the fortuitous circumstance that the real perpetrator of this horrendous crime, rape and beating of a 94 year old woman, left DNA at the crime scene, Mr. Hernandez, given the strong impact confessions have on juries, would likely have been wrongly convicted of these charges and would currently be spending the balance of his life in prison. Given the cavalier comments by Chief Johnson and Detective Powers regarding their belief that they did nothing wrong, it seems unlikely that training and reforms geared at changing the interrogation process that resulted in the false confession in the Hernandez case will occur in the PAPD any time soon if the decision for change is left to Chief Johnson. Future money judgments against the city should be incentive enough for immediate reform in the interrogation process. But more importantly, the likelihood of wrongful convictions of the innocent, if the current interrogation practice is allowed to stand, should trigger sufficient citizen outrage to demand that change take place immediately. The research in the field of wrongful confessions strongly suggests that once there is a confession attributed to a suspect everyone in the criminal justice system, the defense attorney, district attorney and judge etc, assumes the guilt of suspect and close scrutiny of the case, including testing and or investigating of the reliability of the confession ceases. Where the courts, public defenders and DA’s are burdened with heavy caseloads the situation is only exacerbated. Once the confession is recorded the focus of all the players in the system most often becomes pressuring the defendant to plead guilty. In the case of a false confession the defendant frequently becomes the victim of both a coerced/false confession and a coerced plea of guilty. The numbers of individuals who are the victims of both false confessions and subsequent pleas to charges they are not guilty of are much larger than commonly understood. Without immediate reform to the police practices that lead to false confessions the cycle of injustice will remain unabated except for the rare case like Jorge Hernandez where irrefutable evidence of its falsehood exists. Simply agreeing to tape the entire interrogation (which the PAPD has apparently now agreed to do) is an insufficient safeguard against coerced false confessions. Without an end to interrogation tactics based on lies and deceit there is no guarantee that a false confession will be uncovered. It is not enough to tape the entire interrogation; the use of lies, trickery and deceit as routine police practice in extracting confessions must be outlawed.